Proposition 8 discussion continued - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-12-2008, 11:47 AM   #151
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Yes that's just so pro family. The children will suffer, and I don't know how adults can live with themselves when they do.


don't you see? it's complicated.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 12:16 PM   #152
musicidalist
 
Miroslava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: KVKX
Posts: 10,738
Local Time: 12:48 PM
Some LDS members leaving church over same-sex marriage controversy

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - The strong backlash against the LDS Church over Proposition 8 is taking a new twist. LDS members - sometimes whole LDS families - say they are now leaving the Church because of its opposition to same-sex marriage.

On just one anti-prop 8 website, they reportedly number in the hundreds. Some say they've already resigned; others are apparently about to.

Linda Stay from St. George is one of those resigning from the LDS Church, and is doing so because the Church opposes gay marriage, like the one her son Tyler is in.



Full Article
__________________

__________________
Miroslava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 12:20 PM   #153
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 09:48 AM
All this can't be helping Mittens, so maybe there IS a Silver lining !
__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 01:34 PM   #154
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Gawker, of all people, gives the gay community the swift kick in the ass it needs, further emphasizing that the loss of this particular battle just might eventually win us the war. brilliant headline, too:



Quote:
Pro-Gay Marriage Forces Finally Organizing, After Losing
By Pareene, 5:52 PM on Tue Nov 11 2008, 6,267 views

We mentioned it before, but it was sad when, on Election Night, America once again said thanks, but no thanks, to recognizing the rights of gay people. Specifically, California's Proposition 8, which banned the state's previously legal gay marriages, passed. Now, hey, everyone's going nuts. The gays are currently blaming Black People, Mormons, the governor, Barack Obama, and others, and they're protesting and demonstrating and doing all the other things everyone forgot to do before the vote happened.

We know everyone was totally distracted by Barack Obama and his magical election, but guys, even we out here in New York knew you faced a well-funded, well-organized, media-savvy campaign of lies and misinformation, and the pro-gay marriage response was abysmal.

Now—now!—Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says it's a shame gay marriage was banned, oh boo hoo. He didn't lift a finger to campaign against Prop 8 before! Now David Geffen is quoted in The Daily Beast babbling about the lack of outreach to black voters. Where was his money, before? [Update: Geffen gave $200k, out of his billions.] Did he get his rich liberal friends to contribute as much as the Mormon Church did? Did they use the money to build a grassroots movement as well-organized as the pro-Prop 8 guys did? Check out the list of Hollywood's non-donors as of September 10—many of them did eventually donate, but see how they didn't feel the need to until the last second?

Blaming the blacks is ridiculous and unhelpful and stupid. There aren't enough black people in California to have make the ultimate difference, even with bigger turnout, unless you consider these black voters a subset of religious voters, a giant group everyone should've known they'd have to contend with months ago. Black people certainly posed less of an electoral threat than Catholics did in the California polls.


It seems like everyone just assumed Prop 8 would fail, magically, even when the polls tightened significantly. And now—now!—the protests are ramping up. Now—now!—Keith Olbermann delivers his heartfelt Special Comment. Hey, let's all boycott Sundance! That'll show the Mormons! They won't meddle in our affairs ever again!

Of course the anger and resentment is already hardening. But yes, outreach and education and organization and money (and maybe some genuine help from Barack Obama, who was against Prop 8, though you'd never know it) might've won the battle.

Garnering support for gay rights in Arizona, in Arkansas, even in Florida, are difficult challenges that will still probably take years of work, but to get a gay marriage ban passed in California smacks of enlightened rich liberals not trying hard enough.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 01:34 PM   #155
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: 08:48 AM
So all that anti-choice bullshit about adoption being the solution really was just bullshit?
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 01:40 PM   #156
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
So all that anti-choice bullshit about adoption being the solution really was just bullshit?


we certainly can't have the gays raising them, so we need to offer enticements and incentives to get otherwise reluctant straight people to come out and adopt more of these kids.

like this heterosexual woman:

Md. Mother Jailed After Bodies Of 2 Children Found in Freezer - washingtonpost.com

this story was in the DC area papers a few weeks ago. it's rare that a news story makes me cry, but this one did.

consider the following, too:

Woman Met Adoption Requirements, D.C. Officials Say - washingtonpost.com
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 01:45 PM   #157
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: 08:48 AM
Quote:
While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.”
So, the gay agenda is all about providing loving, caring homes.

What's the agenda of the Arkansas Family Council, then?

Quote:
Even before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild;
See, this is what will wake straights up. When they see that this bullshit affects them.






And no one here has defended this complicated law yet?
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 02:13 PM   #158
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
because the Supreme Court of California found that banning gay citizens from access to the institution of marriage and it's subsequent legal rights and benefits was unconstitutional.
Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.

Quote:
why is it okay to retain a law that has been found to violate the civil rights of millions of Californians?
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 02:27 PM   #159
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex.




Are you sure you want this? I can only imagine the divorce settlements the gays could rack up, if they married and divorced a bunch of rich women to make a statement. Maybe that's how the Prop. 8 repeal can be funded!
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 02:45 PM   #160
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.
why wasn't a civil union enough for you?

it's all water, why can't we have separate water fountains? the bus goes to the same station, why can't the blacks just sit in the back?

why do you need to maintain this distinction?


Quote:
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.
is this really behavior you want to encourage? do you want straights and gays getting married? doesn't that fundamentally alter the definition of marriage much more than simply expanding it to encompass same-sex relationships? do you really want to encourage that level of deception? do you really want two people who are incapable of making a union in the way that attracted couples could make one?

this isn't about gauzy, vague notions of "what marriage means as a society," it is about equal protection under the law. it's not about the right to get married, it's about the right to be treated equally under the law. judges don't grant any rights, they simply affirm that the right already existed under their constitution. one group of people should not be treated differently from everyone else. the court has a duty to protect minority groups from discrimination. it's far more than easy scapegoats like the ACLU and LAMBDA. it's also the ADL and the Bar Association of San Francisco as well as the APA and virtually every newspaper in California and the CTA.



Quote:
And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."

are you going to go the STING rout of asserting something and then not backing it up? there is not a word in Prop 8 about education. no child can be forced against the will of teir parents to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. the case in Massachusetts is absolutely irrelevant to what's going on in California -- and it's absurd, imho, to think that a book that simply states that two Kings can get married or that Heather might have 2 Mommies is somehow objectionable. there's no sex in these books, just the mere fact that gay people exist.

the court decision specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 02:48 PM   #161
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
It doesn't bother you that the vote may be unconstitutional? So should we have a state vote to see if they want to ban interracial marriage in Alabama? Come on, "one citizen, one vote".
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 02:53 PM   #162
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
You voted for the side of Proposition 8 that was totally against separation of church and state. You do realize that, don't you? You're for a group that overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 8 on religious grounds.

As Irvine said, there's nothing here about the rights of churches that would change.

Please stop ignoring facts.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 02:57 PM   #163
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 11:48 AM
just an observation, and i totally plead guilty here, but i will say that it must be tough to defend a position in here when 5-6 people come at you from all angles.

but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:04 PM   #164
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.
True.

I think they honestly believe in the fight, they just don't know why.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:07 PM   #165
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
True.

I think they honestly believe in the fight, they just don't know why.
They know why. They just don't have the cojones to say it.
__________________

__________________
toscano 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 11:48 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