Care to explain how they "approach" in levels of commitment but aren't equal in that regard?
Proposition 8 discussion continued
- Thread starter yolland
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Care to explain how they "approach" in levels of commitment but aren't equal in that regard?
OP
OP
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
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.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
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
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
In general, gay men have significantly more partners - even while within relationships.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Source?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
y chromosome
In general,
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The United Family Trust Association.
OP
OP
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
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 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.
At any rate, diamond seemed to be making a categorical statement about "commitment etc." (meaning
Last edited:
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I thought that multiple partners were synonymous with the gay lifestyle, at least when the terminology is thrown around in discussion.
OP
OP
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
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.
Last edited:
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
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.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
sexual orientaion is not protected under the constitution.
<>
Well yours is, and that's pretty much all that matters to you, right?
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
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
Lets party
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
An answer ! (Somewhat)
Especially when it's coupled with extensive research for the half-assed answer it accompanies.
But it isn't. You already said that. Now I'm confused. 
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. But it isn't. You already said that. Now I'm confused. This isn't what those uppity gayz want, and you know that.
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.
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?
So what's the big deal, then?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I just though I'd bring this up again in case nathan wants to post another long, researched answer to a post.
Or find another article to post instead.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
perhaps these are the essential gender differences that some are so eager to make sure dominate our lives and culture?
in many ways, in light of gender, doesn't this make the love and commitment of a monogamous long term male couple that much more admirable? perhaps the very ideal towards which Christians should strive because these two men have obviously conquered whatever biological predisposition to promiscuity has been hardwired into men for, you know, milennia.
Doozer61
Blue Crack Addict
I have the day off today!
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
gay people have vigorously argued for their rights only, and gay people are widely recognized as a distinct, identifiable social group. homosexuality is an involuntary, harmless orientation that's recognized by every conceivable medical group in the western world. this isn't about everybody -- it is about a very specific group wanting to have access to rights that the majority enjoy. we're talking about something very specific here. the arguments have been presented in specific terms. the only people talking about other "groups" are the opponents.
so this isn't about marrying "anyone" -- it's about being able to marry someone.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
BoMac
Self-righteous bullshitter
Did anybody see Jon Stewart's interview with Mike Huckabee last night? A large portion of it was on the gay marriage issue.
What did you think?
What did you think?
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
I thought it was awesome...
I'm sure Lila will be along shortly to post a clip
I especially like John's arguments about using the "tradition" of marriage as a defense being weak since things like polygamy used to be accepted and interracial marriages used to be discouraged.
His line about how a person can chose their religion but not chose their sexuality was spot on as well
I'm sure Lila will be along shortly to post a clip
I especially like John's arguments about using the "tradition" of marriage as a defense being weak since things like polygamy used to be accepted and interracial marriages used to be discouraged.
His line about how a person can chose their religion but not chose their sexuality was spot on as well
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Mike Huckabee Will Not Marry Jon Under Any Circumstances | Indecision2008 | Comedy Central
The second video has the gay marriage discussion
"Forcing someone who is gay to make their case"-gee that sounds awfully familiar...
The second video has the gay marriage discussion
"Forcing someone who is gay to make their case"-gee that sounds awfully familiar...
OP
OP
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
I think this may have been, in effect, his answer here:
In which case, the issue really is just the title itself, because granting it to same-sex relationships would mean granting social and cultural sanction to a relationship that might lead to parenthood, and thus by extension to same-sex parenting. Yes, many unmarried heteros have kids; yes, many gay and lesbian couples have kids too; there'd be no practicable way of preventing those things--but, we don't sanction them with a title which happens to carry the cultural resonance of "best environment in which to raise children." Unfortunately, plenty of far-from-"best" hetero parents do have that sanction; but again, there's no practicable way to prevent that since you can't tell in advance which ones they are, whereas same-sex couples are easy to spot. Childless married heteros are irrelevant to the question because, well, they're childless. And while plenty of gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry might say (and mean) that they have no interest in becoming parents, there's no practicable way to know for sure that they won't.
At least, that's how I understand his argument.
Presumably most people who hold this stance on same-sex marriage are also opposed to same-sex couples being allowed to adopt but, perhaps conveniently, that's legally a separate issue from marriage rights.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
what, then, are we to do with gay people? what choices do they have? or is it in society's best interests to marginalize and stigmatize them as much as possible so that their sex-role challenging relationships don't challenge and undermine and subvert the male/female binary relationship that produces children? (i guess because it's so fragile?)
Lila64
Blue Crack Distributor
I've been gone from this thread for a while - no time to catch up at this point. Don't know if this has been posted (I searched, but didn't see anything). Mike Huckabee was on The Daily Show a couple of nights ago. Here's the clip from the Courage Campaign website, and a thank you note to sign if you wish to do so:
Courage Campaign | Repeal Prop 8: Thank Jon Stewart
Courage Campaign | Repeal Prop 8: Thank Jon Stewart
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Lila64
Blue Crack Distributor
I thought it was awesome...
I'm sure Lila will be along shortly to post a clip
I especially like John's arguments about using the "tradition" of marriage as a defense being weak since things like polygamy used to be accepted and interracial marriages used to be discouraged.
His line about how a person can chose their religion but not chose their sexuality was spot on as well
elfa
I searched Daily Show, not Jon Stewart, otherwise I wouldn't have posted. I hadn't read this page either, my bad.
I thought that Jon Stewart 100% completely owned Huckabee in that interview. He owned the whole anti-gay-marriage argument. Fan-fucking-tastic.
Is there a single gay person who has argued that marriage should only be between a man and a woman? See, if the argument is truly based 100% on logic, then there should be no problem at all finding a gay person to agree with the argument. Logic, after all, is not exclusive to straight people. If there truly is no bias whatsoever in the anti-gay-marriage argument, then there must be at least one gay person who who can champion the logic.
Where is that person?
Is there a single gay person who has argued that marriage should only be between a man and a woman? See, if the argument is truly based 100% on logic, then there should be no problem at all finding a gay person to agree with the argument. Logic, after all, is not exclusive to straight people. If there truly is no bias whatsoever in the anti-gay-marriage argument, then there must be at least one gay person who who can champion the logic.
Where is that person?
Similar threads
