Proposition 8 discussion continued - Page 43 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-09-2008, 11:12 PM   #631
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
*but approaches in levels of commitment etc.

<>
Care to explain how they "approach" in levels of commitment but aren't equal in that regard?
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 11:20 PM   #632
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage
Just wanted to correct part of this claim here (it's from the article nathan posted). Of the major Jewish 'denominations' in the US, only Orthodoxy doesn't 'officially endorse gay marriage'--meaning that around 85% of religious American Jews belong to a denomination endorsing gay marriage.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 12:16 AM   #633
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Well, at least you're honest: marriage is more about sex-based binary relationship roles than it is about anything else, including love or plans for children.


this really is the crux of it, and it's the crux of nathan's arguments which he's referenced, but hasn't returned to defend or expand upon. if marriage is about solidifying and codifying "natural" sex roles, i think it's only logical that there are certain privileges given to married straight folk that cannot be replicated in a civil union. i'd just like to know what those are.

i'd also like to know -- given the veneration of the people's right to vote on whatever tickles their fancy -- if there are other rights that we can vote upon. you've stripped gay people of their right to marry. what could be next? the right to adopt? the right to foster a child? the right to teach in the public schools? the right to own property together? the right to have sex? the right to hold hands?

if the people vote on it, and it passes, then who are we to argue with the will of the volk people?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 12:31 AM   #634
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Care to explain how they "approach" in levels of commitment but aren't equal in that regard?
In general, gay men have significantly more partners - even while within relationships.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 12:37 AM   #635
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
volk
In German it's still a perfectly normal word.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 12:55 AM   #636
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
even while within relationships.
Source?
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 01:05 AM   #637
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Source?

y chromosome

In general, gay men have significantly more partners - even while within relationships.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 01:07 AM   #638
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:55 AM
The United Family Trust Association.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 01:18 AM   #639
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Lesbians don't count apparently, even though they're also denied access to marriage.

At any rate, diamond seemed to be making a categorical statement about "commitment etc." (meaning[s] not specified) rather than a statistical generalization about sexual infidelity rates...which I have yet to see anyone use as an argument against allowing gay or lesbian couples to marry.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 01:43 AM   #640
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:55 AM
I thought that multiple partners were synonymous with the gay lifestyle, at least when the terminology is thrown around in discussion.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 03:40 AM   #641
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
So who gets to decide on who has the right to vote?
Federal law contains no provisions concerning referenda or ballot initiatives, which is why only some states offer them. While the California Constitution obviously provides for them, and prescribes the means by which CA citizens may qualify a measure for the ballot, the California courts are nonetheless empowered to order qualified initiatives to be removed from the ballot, as well as to annul successfully passed initiatives, both of which have happened before. If such actions actually violated federally protected voting rights, as you're suggesting, then obviously the federal government wouldn't have allowed that.

Of course, it's also true that same-sex couples' right to marry (or to enter into civil unions, for that matter) isn't presently federally protected either. So unless the California courts decide to annul Proposition 8 on the basis of the currently pending lawsuits, which is unlikely, then you'll get what you voted for. It's not your "voting rights," however, which are at stake, because neither the US Constitution nor the CA Constitution guarantee you the "right" to see a successfully passed ballot initiative that you supported upheld by the courts.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 03:56 AM   #642
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
You gotta admit: it takes balls nowadays to say marriage isn't a civil right and that the Supreme Court had no business extending that non-civil right to the Lovings, because the good people of Virginia, through their freely and democratically elected representatives, had outlawed just that thing years before.
You gotta admit: it takes balls to put words in someone else's mouth just because a lot of us have more important things to do than hang out in FYM all day.

Is there a difference between recognizing the civil right of marriage to someone of the opposite sex but different race (as Loving affirmed), and declaring that marriage is a civil right which extends to anyone who wants to marry anyone at any time, regardless of gender, grouping, etc -- which neither Baker v. Nelson in 1972 nor Hernandez v. Robles in 2007 affirmed? Baker, which was argued in the shadows of Loving, said that the Loving precedent only applied to opposite-sex marriages -- and Hernandez, which specifically cited Loving, agreed. So the application of Loving is a bit of a stretch from a legal perspective.

There are three problems that created Prop 8:
1. Legal precedent - application of Loving to same-sex marriages is problematic at best, given the subsequent rulings by Baker v. Nelson in 1972 and Hernandez v. Robles in 2007. (The CT ruling seems to have ignored legal precedent entirely.)
2. Federal law - the DOMA Act establishes no federal recognition of same-sex marriages, and as I recall we had a little war a couple years back about the delicate balance of state and federal rights.
3. The CA definition of marriage, which was passed just eight years ago by 60+% of CA voters establishing that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now how exactly should a self-governed people respond to a ruling that is both illegal at a state and federal level, and has no solid legal precedent?

It might also be helpful to point out again that the same rights of marriage in the state of CA have already been conferred to registered domestic partners. From CA Family Code 297 below:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same
rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.

(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death
of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to
and imposed upon a widow or a widower.

(d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners
with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those
of spouses.
The rights and obligations of former or surviving
registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of
them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.
(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer
to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise
would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently
than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by
California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in
the same manner as California law.
(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights
regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
(g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any
person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered
domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are
registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing
in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care
plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part
3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(h) This act does not preclude any state or local agency from
exercising its regulatory authority to implement statutes providing
rights to, or imposing responsibilities upon, domestic partners.
(i) This section does not amend or modify any provision of the
California Constitution or any provision of any statute that was
adopted by initiative.
(j) Where necessary to implement the rights of registered domestic
partners under this act, gender-specific terms referring to spouses
shall be construed to include domestic partners.
(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations,
court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision
or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits,
and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered
domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with
respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to
third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either
partner to seek financial support from the other following the
dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as
between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference
to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of
registration of a domestic partnership with the state.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for domestic partnerships
registered with the state before January 1, 2005, an agreement
between the domestic partners that the partners intend to be governed
by the requirements set forth in Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive,
and which complies with those sections, except for the agreement's
effective date, shall be enforceable as provided by Sections 1600 to
1620, inclusive, if that agreement was fully executed and in force as
of June 30, 2005.

...Just so we're all clear.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 08:00 AM   #643
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
sexual orientaion is not protected under the constitution.


<>
Well yours is, and that's pretty much all that matters to you, right?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 08:35 AM   #644
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:55 AM
He isn't saying that, what he is saying is that it is up for the vote and the heterosexuals have the numbers.

Lets party
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 08:39 AM   #645
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: 09:55 AM
An answer ! (Somewhat)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
just because a lot of us have more important things to do than hang out in FYM all day.
This is always my favorite excuse for an unanswered question. Especially when it's coupled with extensive research for the half-assed answer it accompanies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
recognizing the civil right of marriage
But it isn't. You already said that. Now I'm confused.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
declaring that marriage is a civil right which extends to anyone who wants to marry anyone at any time, regardless of gender, grouping, etc --
This isn't what those uppity gayz want, and you know that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
which neither Baker v. Nelson in 1972 nor Hernandez v. Robles in 2007 affirmed? Baker, which was argued in the shadows of Loving, said that the Loving precedent only applied to opposite-sex marriages -- and Hernandez, which specifically cited Loving, agreed. So the application of Loving is a bit of a stretch from a legal perspective.
Quoted legal cases which rule that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't count where the gayz are concerned is a nice touch. If I cared, I'm sure I could dig up cases where the blacks didn't count for a while. All supported by the holy right of the voters to deny those rights. Which is something you still haven't addressed, along with Irvine's SINGLE question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Now how exactly should a self-governed people respond to a ruling that is both illegal at a state and federal level, and has no solid legal precedent?
By moving forward in time? By recognizing that rights can be extended to groups who have none? By understanding that changing unfair practices of the past is the mark of a civilized people? I dunno. What's your answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
It might also be helpful to point out again that the same rights of marriage in the state of CA have already been conferred to registered domestic partners.
So what's the big deal, then?
__________________

__________________
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 12:55 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