marriage equality in California - Page 25 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-04-2008, 02:41 PM   #361
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I realize that's a bit cliché and clunky and I almost said "political" because that's what I really think should be fair to criticize or not agree with; political and public expressions of homosexuality (like redefining marriage).

what are these political and public expressions of homosexuality?

on one hand, i suppose you could say that my entire life is a political and public expression of homosexuality. from purchasing a Mac to going to the gym this morning to making the decision to replace rice with quinoa.

so i'm still at a loss here.

Quote:
But anyway I went for private because sometimes, like in the mid 80's, as we learned more about AIDS and it's transmission methods it should have been ok to bring into question the private sexual practices of promiscuity or gay bath-houses without being label as homophobic. Right?

right. insofar as we understand that many of these practices -- like, say, crime in the african-american community -- are rooted in deep histories of prejudice and discrimination, not to mention shame and self-loathing. also, plain old gender. and that's also not to say that there weren't then (and aren't still) plain old irresponsible gay hedonists just like there are plain old criminals who are african-american.

the issue, as i'm sure you can understand, being one who is perhaps rightly quick with the "elitist" label, is that one must demonstrate a level of understanding, nuance, history, and acknowledgment of a complexity of circumstance and a multiplicity of factors that contribute to anti-social, dangerous behavior. once this is demonstrated -- and, rightly or wrongly, it's often demonstrated by simply being a member of said group -- then one's criticisms have weight and heft and merit.

and no one has done more to regulate and control the sexual impulses of the gay male than other gay males.

(though marriage would do wonders as well -- it's genuinely conservative, no?)



Quote:
However, by the 90's, it should have been fair to point out that government AIDS spending had become grossly disproportional in relationship to other much more common diseases like stroke, diabetes or lung disease. Or point out how hurtful the brutal public mockery of especially the Catholic Church had become. Or point out how ridiculous and almost fascist the whole "AIDS ribbon" situation had become -- without being label anti-gay. Right?
as a world-wide plague, i'm not sure you're going to find something comparable to AIDS, and i don't think that there's a direct correlation to be made between the above health afflictions. it is kind of grotesque to think that one disease is more worthy than another -- are you going to argue that breast cancer is less worthy than prostate cancer?

what i personally find irritating is that we'll have people -- even in FYM -- quick to fault gay men and their sexual practices in order to make them seem somehow less "worthy" as victims, and yet take a laissez-faire attitude towards smoking, or, say, diet and exercise in regards to stroke and heart disease. in fact, i'd say the southern diet is probably riskier than having unprotected sex once in a while.

but that's beside the point.



Quote:
Discrimination and bigotry do exist, and it is often is directed towards homosexuals. But marriage and family is at the foundation of civilization so if we are going to change our very notion of what those words mean then isn't it ok for some to say "hey wait a minute, let's think about this"? The same "hey wait a minute, let's think about this" we all wish the White House had entertained prior to invading Iraq. The same "hey wait a minute" that should be part of any public policy discussion.

i can appreciate how the pace of change can feel a bit like whiplash, but it's also a bit audacious to ask someone to stop and wait for everyone else to warm up and get comfortable when there are very real, very tangible rights at stake. should an interracial couple in 1967 Virginia have had to slow down and wait for the rest of the state to catch up? should Vivian Malone and James Hood have sat out another semester or two so the white students at the U of Alabama had some breathing room to get used to the idea, so that desegregation should be debated on it's merits? after all, if desegregation actually is a good idea, then it should be able to stand some public scrutiny, right? there were perfectly good colleges for African-Americans, why did these particular students *have* to go to the U of Alabama? there were plenty of other options for them, there was nothing standing in the way of their getting their degrees. less than 100 years after the Civil War, was it too much to ask for these students to stop and take a breath and really figure out what the social impact of their enrollment at the U of Alabama was really going to be?


Quote:
Not by judicial fiat, against the will of the majority, with objections summarily dismissed as bigotry and opponents labeled as homophobes.
as i've said before, i have yet to see an argument against same sex marriage that wasn't, at it's core, homophobic. people have argued about essentialist notions of gender, or not to tamper with the traditions of society, but ultimately they are making a comparison and a judgment -- that a heterosexual union is, always and in all ways, preferable and superior to a homosexual union.

that is homophobia. and what i think many people don't understand is that homophobia, like racism, isn't necessarily intentionally pernicious. there are many subconscious expressions of racism that i think even the most progressive of us still demonstrate in our lives. race does matter. it does affect our lives in subtle ways. likewise with homophobia. what i see is the inability to recognize the humanity of a homosexual union as being equal -- in merits and in faults -- to a heterosexual union.

one of our most eloquent posters in here has pointed out that he knows several gay couples who have found ways to love and protect one another and that there were many tools available for gay people to solidify their relationships.

and yet, he's married. so, clearly, the options available for the gays weren't enough for him. this is precisely the issue and what i'm talking about when i talk about homophobia in this context. this isn't a Fred Phelps "God Hates Fags" insanity, just like the KKK isn't representative of the racism that makes a white lady clutch her purse just a bit tighter when she passes a pair of black male teenagers on the sidewalk. this is recognition of the social barriers that exist between us all, and that we are all, in a sense, victims of, in one way or another.

i won't even touch the "judicial fiat" -- we all know what the results of Brown vs. Board of Ed and other such fiats were.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 04:14 PM   #362
War Child
 
camiloj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 695
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I realize that's a bit cliché and clunky and I almost said "political" because that's what I really think should be fair to criticize or not agree with; political and public expressions of homosexuality (like redefining marriage). Just as you should be able to question the policies of a Christian Church or heterosexual public expressions without being called a God-hater or heterophobic (interestingly, a word that doesn't even exist on my spell-check). And aren't we having a similar problem in this years presidential election? The deep suspicion, not completely unjustified, that much of the opposition to Barack Obama is really rooted in his race.
But anyway I went for private because sometimes, like in the mid 80's, as we learned more about AIDS and it's transmission methods it should have been ok to bring into question the private sexual practices of promiscuity or gay bath-houses without being label as homophobic. Right? Now I'm old enough to remember the 80's and in hindsight that reaction or say the practices of ACTUP are somewhat understandable as there was a time when the suffering and death in the gay community was, shamefully, largely ignored by society and much of the medical community.

However, by the 90's, it should have been fair to point out that government AIDS spending had become grossly disproportional in relationship to other much more common diseases like stroke, diabetes or lung disease. Or point out how hurtful the brutal public mockery of especially the Catholic Church had become. Or point out how ridiculous and almost fascist the whole "AIDS ribbon" situation had become -- without being label anti-gay. Right?

Discrimination and bigotry do exist, and it is often is directed towards homosexuals. But marriage and family is at the foundation of civilization so if we are going to change our very notion of what those words mean then isn't it ok for some to say "hey wait a minute, let's think about this"? The same "hey wait a minute, let's think about this" we all wish the White House had entertained prior to invading Iraq. The same "hey wait a minute" that should be part of any public policy discussion.

Same-sex marriage should become a reality on it's merits should it not? Because it is the right and worthy thing to do; a natural progression on the road to equal rights for all. Publicly debated with it's existence depending upon the weight of it's proponents arguments. Not by judicial fiat, against the will of the majority, with objections summarily dismissed as bigotry and opponents labeled as homophobes.
IN California, it is no longer against the will of the majority. Making gay marriage legal in California is not about changing what marriage and family means to you. The REALITY, is that what you perceive as a family, has indeed changed. Now there are two women raising a child or two, or two men, the traditional concept of what a family has been morphing for quite some time.

Does that mean anyone is trying to pry what a traditional family is to you INDY? No, forever a traditional family to you will be two oppposite sex parents and their biological offspring. That will be your reality, that will be what family means to you.

No one is trying to force you to have to accept that there are other kinds of families. You can continue to believe in the kind of family you want.

But in the same way, in the State of California, people should not try to make illegal my marriage, my family, my life. It's not right, and that's what the State Supreme Court made their decision on.

I thought this thread was The Marriage Equality case in California. You can debate homosexuality, the Bible, lawsuites etc. forever, but as far as the right to marry in the State of California, the Supreme Court has issued a very strong statement that more than likely even this latest proposition, will not be overturn, although at this time it's losing anyway.

What then? Will marriage in the State of California be ruined for you? We don't want YOU to personally recognize gay marriages, we want the STATE to recognize it LEGALLY.

That is all.

P.S. I NEVER chose to be gay. I was as attracted to the same sex at the earliest age (without a molestation) as early as you were probably attracted to the opposite sex. It's NEVER been a choice for me and it is not a LIFESTYLE, it is WHO I AM.
__________________

__________________
camiloj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 07:35 PM   #363
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: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I understand your point, yet you say
But we all have the right to withhold our condoning or sanctioning of something we feel is not, in our judgement, in the best interests of society

I had written a reply a to Yolland's question about what is perceived as the damage to the familyand ultimately society that would result from gay marriage. If you wouldn't mind taking the time to find it--it's a couple pages back--would you be willing to read it and let me know how close (or far) from the mark I was?
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 08:03 AM   #364
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 01:53 PM
No pictures yet-damn it I want pictures. Only 19 guests-no over the top celeb wedding there. I hope Ellen can finally find the happiness she deserves, she seems like such a nice person.



Ring the wedding bells!

Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi have tied the knot.

"Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi were married tonight in an intimate ceremony at their home in Los Angeles," their spokesperson tells PEOPLE exclusively.

DeGeneres, 50, and de Rossi, 35, both wore Zac Posen and exchanged rings by Neil Lane during the Saturday ceremony. Their big day also featured arrangements by L.A. florist Mark's Garden.

The intimate ceremony was attended by 19 guests, including DeGeneres's mom Betty and de Rossi's mother Margaret Rogers (who flew in from Australia for the occasion), who witnessed the couple exchange handwritten vows.

The couple have been dating since December 2004. DeGeneres announced her plans to wed de Rossi during a taping of her talk show in May after California's Supreme Court ruled a previous ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional.

The following month de Rossi showed off a 3-carat diamond ring set on a pink pavé band DeGeneres presented to her for their upcoming nuptials when the pair attended the Daytime Emmy Awards together.

"She's taught me lessons about myself, and I feel like I've taught her," the TV host said of de Rossi last year. "We've both changed and grown, and we just feel like, 'Oh, okay, this is completion.'"
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 09:12 AM   #365
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: 10:53 AM
Shit.

There goes the foundation of society.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 09:20 AM   #366
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:53 PM
MrsS, I saw pictures of it yesterday...
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 09:55 AM   #367
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Where?

Ooh I just found some random fuzzy ones online, taken with a telephoto lens so I won't post any of them. But they looked so nice, Portia's dress looked gorgeous.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 10:30 AM   #368
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Yeah, I think the ones I saw were at Just Jared, and they were a bit fuzzy, but you could still see the outfits, etc. Looked like a nice ceremony.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 08:28 AM   #369
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Thursday August 21, 8:17 am ET
By Sarah Skidmore, AP Business Writer

Hallmark, seeing a new market after California ruling, rolls out gay marriage greeting cards

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- Most states don't recognize gay marriage -- but now Hallmark does.

The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards -- featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.

Hallmark added the cards after California joined Massachusetts as the only U.S. states with legal gay marriage. A handful of other states have recognized same-sex civil unions.

The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

"It's our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can," Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.

Hallmark's largest competitor, American Greetings Corp., has no plans to enter the market, saying its current offerings are general enough to speak to a lot of different relationships.

Hallmark started offering "coming out" cards last year, and the four designs of same-sex marriage cards are being gradually released this summer and will be widely available by next year. No sales figures were available yet.

"When I have shopped for situations like babies or weddings for gay friends I have good luck in quirky stores," said Kathryn Hamm, president of the Web site gayweddings.com.

"But if you are just in a generic store ... the bride and groom symbol or words are in most cards," she said. "It becomes difficult to find some that are neutral but have some style."

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates that more than 85,000 same-sex couples in the United States have entered into a legal relationship since 1997, when Hawaii started offering some legal benefits to same-sex partners.

It estimates nearly 120,000 more couples will marry in California during the next three years -- and that means millions of potential dollars for all sorts of wedding-industry businesses.

Hallmark, known more for its Midwest mores than progressive greetings, has added a wider variety lately. It now offers cards for difficulty getting pregnant or going through rehab.

It pulled a controversial card that featured the word "queer" in the punch line after it was criticized by some customers and gay magazine The Advocate last year. At any given time, Hallmark has 200 different wedding cards on the market, including some catering to interracial or inter-religious marriages and blended families.

The Greeting Card Association, a trade group, says it does not track how many companies provide same-sex cards but believes the number is expanding.

"The fact that you have someone like Hallmark going into that niche shows it's growing and signals a trend," said Barbara Miller, a spokeswoman for the association.

Rob Fortier, an independent card maker who runs his company, Paper Words, out of New York, added same-sex wedding cards to his mix after thinking about what he would want to receive.

"A lot of people think a gay greeting card needs a rainbow on it," Fortier said. "I don't want that."

But for some time, it was difficult to even find the words for what anyone wanted to say, he said.

His first card poked fun at the challenge. On the outside it featured lines that had been scratched out: "Congratulations on being committed!", "Congratulations on being unionized!" and, finally, "Congratulations on being domestically partnered!" The inside wished the couple congratulations on choosing to be together forever.

"It really comes down to language," he said.

John Stark, one of the three founders of Three Way Design in Boston, which makes gay-themed cards for occasions from adoption to weddings, has several new designs sketched out and ready.

But he has hesitated adding more wedding cards to his mix until after the November election, when California voters will decide a constitutional amendment that would again limit marriage to a man and a woman in the state.

"What is scary is to produce a marriage line and then November comes and it's recalled, then we have thousands of dollars of inventory waiting," he said.

The gay-friendly business can be challenging, companies said.

Hamm said although she has found many vendors willing to work with her company, some have asked to be removed from the Web site because of hate mail or some other backlash.

Hallmark says all of its stores can choose whether they want to add the latest offerings.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2008, 12:53 PM   #370
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: 10:53 AM
I saw this in the paper this morning. My first reaction was "How are these churches maintaining their tax-exempt status?"


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5092135.story

Quote:
California churches plan a big push against same-sex marriage
Organizers hope to get 1 million Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, evangelical Christians, Sikhs and Hindus to post lawn signs supporting Prop. 8 in unison next month.
By Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 24, 2008
Early on a late September morning, if all goes according to plan, 1 million Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, evangelical Christians, Sikhs and Hindus will open their doors, march down their front walks and plant "Yes on Proposition 8" signs in their yards to show they support repealing same-sex marriage in California.

It is a bold idea, one that may be difficult to pull off. But whether or not 1 million lawn signs are planted in unison, the plan underscores what some observers say is one of the most ambitious interfaith political organizing efforts ever attempted in the state. Moreover, political analysts say, the alliances across religious boundaries could herald new ways of building coalitions around political issues in California.

"Pan-religious, faith-based political action strategies . . . I think we are going to see a lot more of [this] in the future," said Gaston Espinosa, a professor of religious studies at Claremont McKenna College.

The greatest involvement in the campaign has come from Mormons, Catholics and evangelical Christians, who say they are working together much more closely than they did eight years ago when a similar measure, Proposition 22, was on the ballot.

Mark Jansson, a Mormon who is a member of the Protect Marriage Coalition, said members of his group are also reaching out to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.

Organizers say the groups turned to each other because of the California Supreme Court's ruling in May allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the state. Thousands of gay couples have wed in the state since June 17, the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

"This is a rising up over a 5,000-year-old institution that is being hammered right now," said Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church, an evangelical congregation in La Mesa. Garlow said that, while he supported Proposition 22, he was not nearly as involved as this time around, when he has helped organize 3,400-person conference calls across denominations to coordinate campaign support for the proposed constitutional amendment.

"What binds us together is one common obsession: . . . marriage," Garlow said.

He added that many people of faith, regardless of their religion, believe that "if Proposition 8 fails, there is an inevitable loss of religious freedom."

Other religious leaders vehemently disagree with Garlow and are working just as furiously to defeat Proposition 8. But their efforts have not been as carefully orchestrated as those of the initiative's religious supporters.

Susan Russell, a priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, a liberal congregation that has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, said "fair-minded Californians" should be concerned about some of the tactics and arguments of faith leaders on the other side.

"I will defend to my last breath the right of any of those folks to exercise their religion as they believe they are called to do it," she added. "But I'll resist to my last breath, vote, e-mail and blog their right to inflict their religious beliefs on the Constitution of the state of California."

Russell said that the idea that the court's decision infringed on religious liberty was a "red herring." Divorce is legal in California, she said, but that doesn't mean that Roman Catholic priests have to perform marriages for people who have been divorced.

As the campaign intensifies this fall, both sides in the fight over Proposition 8 say they expect religious leaders and their congregations to continue to play a big role.

To demonstrate that there is significant clergy support for same-sex marriage, the group California Faith for Equality has produced a video of priests, reverends and rabbis talking about why they support gay marriage.

In one, as Pachelbel's Canon plays in the background, the Rev. Neil Thomas, a minister at Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles, looks at the camera and declares: "I absolutely think that Jesus would support the freedom to marry, and because of that, as a follower of Jesus, it is absolutely incumbent upon me to support the freedom to marry as well."

Adds Rabbi Zach Shapiro of Temple Akiba in Culver City: "My faith supports the freedom to marry because, as a Jew, I have a responsibility to fight for what is right . . . and to help bring goodness into the world."

There are plans in the works to make another video that includes Muslim leaders as well as Spanish-speaking religious leaders.

Kerry Chaplin, interfaith organizing director of California Faith for Equality, also said her group plans to work with churches to encourage parishioners to talk to their friends and neighbors about why they should oppose Proposition 8.

On the other side, Garlow said pastors are planning a 40-day fast leading up to the election. He is also planning several rallies, including one that he hopes will include 300,000 youths.

Catholics and Mormons, meanwhile, are organizing their own congregations to try to sway voters, make contributions and get out the vote.

The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, recently donated $1 million to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic Church, said it was too early to say whether the coalitions being built around Proposition 8 would carry over into other issues.

But, he added: "It's an interesting time to get to know each other in different ways."
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2008, 06:02 PM   #371
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Why shouldn't they?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2008, 06:06 PM   #372
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:53 PM
But it's ok for tax-exempt teacher unions to contribute monetarily, get out their vote and endorse a position, right?
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2008, 06:08 PM   #373
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: 10:53 AM
You're right. The IRS only prohibits political activity on behalf of, or against, candidates. They may participate in ballot issues debates and activity.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2008, 06:10 PM   #374
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:53 PM
I don't really have a problem with what the churches are doing here. I disagree with it, certainly, but it is their prerogative.

On the flip side, the churches have also participated in initiatives that promote social justice, programs for the poor and children and so on.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2008, 06:21 PM   #375
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
You're right. The IRS only prohibits political activity on behalf of, or against, candidates. They may participate in ballot issues debates and activity.
see, being anti-gay rights or pro gun rights is not really a party thing.

i mean it is not like one party is pro and the other is anti

and if a religion tells it's members to vote pro-life and only for pro-life candidates, they are not advocating one party over the other.
__________________

__________________
deep 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 01:53 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