Proposition 8 discussion continued

[anitram]

snide comment wreaking w liberal consternation.

<>

Yeah, it's snide to expect that legal matters be addressed by people actually licensed to practice law.

 

[toscano]

Yeah, it's snide to expect that legal matters be addressed by people actually licensed to practice law.

The whole "Activist judges suck, the people should decide" line is such a crock.

if they held a referendum today in California to rescind sales tax and have all sales taxes ever paid to be refunded and to make sales tax unconstitutional, it would get passed by a massive majority. We'd be bankrupt but hey, the people have spoken !

Sometimes, people who actually have the appropriate training do actually have to do their jobs.

If they make abortion unconstitutional I doubt you'd hear any complaining about activist judges from the bigots of the LDS, catholic church or rick fucking warren.

 

[anitram]

There are probably states in the USA where if you put the question:

"Is Mormonism a cult?"

on a ballot, you could get 50%+1 to say yes.

 

[toscano]

There are probably states in the USA where if you put the question:

"Is Mormonism a cult?"

on a ballot, you could get 50%+1 to say yes.

Yeah, every state except utah....

 

[toscano]

There are probably states in the USA where if you put the question:

"Is Mormonism a cult?"

on a ballot, you could get 50%+1 to say yes.

And the biggest bankrollers to "yes on LDS being a cult" would be the evangelicals........

 

[toscano]

It's already happened, let me explain.

In my faith, we marry for eternity. She is not of my faith, so I had a decision to make: we both understood we could only be married for time.

all that proves is that even mormons appreciate a nice rack. A nice rack for time, we'll deal with eternity if it exists eh ?

sneaking suspicion they're bolt-ons though......

 

[martha]

So, even though my state's Constitution has an equal protection clause, gay couples shouldn't expect equal protection under the law in my state? The laws don't apply to them equally?

Still waiting for a direct answer.

 

[Tiger Edge]

Funny you should choose a dolphin to illustrate your point:

YouTube - Homosexuality in dolphins

 

[diamond]

Still waiting for a direct answer.

Seems like Gays have work to do in your state legally-if that's the case.

<>

 

[diamond]

Funny you should choose a dolphin to illustrate your point:

YouTube - Homosexuality in dolphins

interesting.
im glad the homo dolphins do not hate on the hetro dolphins

<>

 

[diamond]

Yeah, it's snide to expect that legal matters be addressed by people actually licensed to practice law.

if the measure have went your way-i doubt your feelings about it would be the same.

<>

 

[phillyfan26]

the oppoents of the prop are trying to say it is an argument against homosexuality-when in it's not.

they've made great leaps of illogic to redefine the intent of the prop and have become intolerant haters and monsters that they so despise in the process.


<>

But it is an argument against homosexuality. It's saying, "You're not allowed to have equal rights. And, even if you were, it cannot be the same word, because it's not the same." That's "separate but equal," a proven failure in this country.

The intent of Proposition 8 is a simple one: to revoke the rights given to citizens by the Supreme Court of California (the point being that there are supposed to be rights not put up to vote, like the Bill of Rights) through bigotry and fear mongering because of ignorance.

I've yet to see you make a reasonable argument against that.

 

[phillyfan26]

interesting.
im glad the homo dolphins do not hate on the hetro dolphins

<>

Intolerance of bigoted heterosexuals is different from intolerance of all heterosexuals.

One is legitimate and reasonable (the former), one is not (the latter).

 

[Tiger Edge]

interesting.
im glad the homo dolphins do not hate on the hetro dolphins

<>

Homosexuals don't hate me...

but maybe that's because I don't resent them.

 

[phillyfan26]

It's already happened, let me explain.

In my faith, we marry for eternity. She is not of my faith, so I had a decision to make: we both understood we could only be married for time.

I could have ended our relationship, or married her for "until death due us part" like other Orthodox Christian faiths do.

In our faith we can choose between the two.

That's what we did we married for time-by a Mormon Bishop.

She holds no animosity to Mormons because we weren't married the traditional Mormon way (for eternity) nor does she think that Mormons are bigoted- like many mean spirited posters have suggested here.

She's made good LDS friends that don't try to prosletyze her and accept her for who she is. We are not looked down by not having an Eternal Marriage.

She's different from me, beautiful and I love her for it.

<>

Religious marriage and legal marriage are two entirely different things. Nathan would even emphasize this, and he is on your side of this discussion.

Thus, your point has no bearing on this discussion, because your rights as a Mormon are completely different from your rights as an American citizen.

 

[martha]

So, even though my state's Constitution has an equal protection clause, gay couples shouldn't expect equal protection under the law in my state? The laws don't apply to them equally?

Seems like Gays have work to do in your state legally-if that's the case.

You still didn't answer my question to you.

 

[phillyfan26]

Marriage: the union of two consenting adults in a relationship recognized legally or religiously.

That was so complicated. How difficult. Now I can see why people don't want to change the definition of the word. It's so hard to do.

 

[diamond]

You still didn't answer my question to you.

I did as far I'm concerened.

<>

 

[martha]

I did as far I'm concerened.

So, you refuse to really answer my questions.

That says a lot, doesn't it?

 

[diamond]

i think it's funny that it's more of a money issue w gays, taxes, medical benefits and not for "better or worse" and love etc.

i think if hetros had those tax and med. benefits stripped and civil unions had them handed to them, the strights would still want to be "married" and gays would be ok w it being called "civil unions".



<>

 

[anitram]

if the measure have went your way-i doubt your feelings about it would be the same.

<>

You're wrong, but that's a constant thing with you anyway.

I don't think there should BE a measure of this sort to begin with.

I further think the California SC correctly interpreted the state constitution. The fact you don't like it doesn't make the judges wrong.

 

[Miroslava]

Interesting NYT article

 

[anitram]

Wow, they're sure fixated on gay marriage. What happened to the log in your own eye?

“We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

The California measure, Proposition 8, was to many Mormons a kind of firewall to be held at all costs.

....

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause.

“And they sure did,” Mr. Schubert said.

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

 

[martha]

i think it's funny that it's more of a money issue w gays, taxes, medical benefits and not for "better or worse" and love etc.

i think if hetros had those tax and med. benefits stripped and civil unions had them handed to them, the strights would still want to be "married" and gays would be ok w it being called "civil unions".

Any sources for this, or did you pull this one out of your ear?

 

[BAW]

i think it's funny that it's more of a money issue w gays, taxes, medical benefits and not for "better or worse" and love etc.

i think if hetros had those tax and med. benefits stripped and civil unions had them handed to them, the strights would still want to be "married" and gays would be ok w it being called "civil unions".



<>

Okay, I see. So those damn homos who have been together for 20, 30 and 40 years aren't in it for better or worse, they've just stuck it out hoping to benefit financially when gay marriage becomes legal.

 

[anitram]

It just shows a lack of understanding on diamond's part. For example, he says they're in it more for tax benefits. In Canada (an irrelevant country where equality exists), gay couples were considerably better off under the tax act before gay marriage was introduced. So they fought tooth and nail to pay more taxes, but since this doesn't jive with diamond's opinion of the legal taxation system, it must not be true.

They're in it for the MONEY!! I guess if you're Jewish you can rest easy there is now another minority group who will be stereotypically associated with greed.

 

[anitram]

Oh and since we're US-centric, it bears stating that gay marriage triggers absolutely no related-party provision in the Tax Code, so there goes diamond's theory there too. Par for the course.

 

[toscano]

interesting.
im glad the homo dolphins do not hate on the hetro dolphins

<>

The "homos" hate on the heteros who woul deny them equal rights. And they are justified in doing so.

I think you guys are still pissed that it took a new "revelation" from god to give blacks equal rights, conveniently just before your tax-exempt status was to be reviewed. You need to take out your pent-up bigotry on another group.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

i think it's funny that it's more of a money issue w gays, taxes, medical benefits and not for "better or worse" and love etc.

i think if hetros had those tax and med. benefits stripped and civil unions had them handed to them, the strights would still want to be "married" and gays would be ok w it being called "civil unions".

So you know all about the relationships and motivations of every gay and straight couple in the universe?

I would guess that gay couples want to take care of the money and medical benefits issues so that they can rest assured that those they love, and their children if they have them, will be taken care of. It's about that, not money. And they want to be able to have marriage for the same love and commitment issues that straight people want marriage for.

Plenty and plenty of straight people are married and stay married for financial reasons rather than love. So your reasoning there is, frankly, hogwash.

 

[Diemen]

all that proves is that even mormons appreciate a nice rack. A nice rack for time, we'll deal with eternity if it exists eh ?

sneaking suspicion they're bolt-ons though......

This is insulting and completely uncalled for. Please keep your comments to the topic at hand and not the physical appearance of other peoples' spouses.