California Legislature OKs Gay Marriage Bill - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-08-2005, 04:01 PM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Sully posts this:



WHEN CALIFORNIA'S COURT RULES: The Los Angeles Times makes an important point about the historic fact of a state legislature passing marriage rights for gay couples:

[O]nce the highest court does order the state to stop discriminating, it will be harder for critics to complain about activist judges getting ahead of the political process. In this case, judges will be reaffirming the Legislature's intent.


And the social right will then say ... what? They'll blame "legislative activism"? As to what gay couples, their friends, families and supporters should do ... use this as another opportunity to make the case for responsibility, equality, and family for everyone. Polls in California show that an initiative backing marriage rights has a chance of winning. Support this organization. Talk to every non-gay person you know and explain why everyone deserves the chance to have a family protected by law. Make the case. Now more than ever.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 04:20 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Is representative democracy better than direct democracy?

the legislative branch is to make and repeal laws

the initiative process, if that is what you are referring to as direct democracy, has failed CA voters more than once.

I realize you were not living in CA in 63-64

I was 8-9 years old at the time and remember vividly how my father worked within the GOP to get Prop 14 passed.

I remember his asking me if it was right,
that if he wanted to sell our home to our neighbor for $1000 less than someone from out of the neighborhood, it was not the liberal governments business interfere, that it was unAmerican, Communistic, sure got me riled up!

Well, 2/3 of a direct democracy? agreed.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 11:38 PM   #48
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: 08:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9247775/

"Clearly he’s pandering to an extreme right wing, which was not how he got elected,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, one of the bill’s sponsors. “He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out.”
I have ZERO fucking sympathy for anyone who voted for that idiot and now somehow feels "sold out." They believed his bullshit?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-09-2005, 12:03 AM   #49
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: 08:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Is representative democracy better than direct democracy?
An excellent question. We can ask the people of Little Rock, Atlanta, Birmingham, or Mississippi.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-09-2005, 12:17 PM   #50
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:51 PM
what i'm finding most encouraging is the fact that it's rather clear where public opinion is headed, both in California and nationwide on this subject. yes, 2004 was depressing, however there's no question that, the younger the demographic polled, the more support is found for gay marriage and civil unions.

what gay marriage opponents are desperate to do is write anti-gay provisions into as many state constitutions as possible -- and maybe even into the federal Constitution -- before the people invested in the hilariously titled "defense of marriage" camp all die off.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-09-2005, 01:05 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:51 PM
If this issue was approached as the need to recognize, and grant rights and protections to the many unmarried couples living together, civil union legislation would be passed without much fuss.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-09-2005, 01:16 PM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If this issue was approached as the need to recognize, and grant rights and protections to the many unmarried couples living together, civil union legislation would be passed without much fuss.

you've hit upon something very interesting.

some proponants of gay marriage argue that civil unions are precisely the wrong way to go if the concern is to protect the "sanctity" of marriage.

if we want to hold marriage as an ideal, and not create a sort of "marriage lite" alternative, then civil unions, a pseudomarital institution, designed specifically for gay couples, that would include most, even all, of the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage but avoid the word itself, would probably do more to alter the meaning of marriage than opening it up to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation.

in fact, setting up a civil unions vs. marriage dichotomy would do much to further stigmatize gay people. if anything, this is a truly "separate but equal" situation.

intellectually and morally, i think that making marriage, and all it's responsibilities, more inclusive is the right thing to do.

however, i'm more of a pragmatist. if the public will only accept civil unions, and a civil unions will allow gay people to adopt each other's children, visit the other in the hospital, make life-or-death decisions, prevent spiteful parents from stealing a deceased partner's assets from the widow/er, and most importantly *protect* the children of the gay couple, then we need civil unions now to protect families.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-10-2005, 12:30 AM   #53
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: 08:51 PM
Civil unions for straight couples is bullshit. Get married or not. Make the committment. (or however the hell you spell it)

Civil unions for gay couples is bullshit as well. But it's all the religious nuts can handle. And then just barely.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-11-2005, 11:13 AM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Funny how all the Bible toters don't practice all the other forms of marriage permitted in the Bible.

1. The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a man leaves his family of origin, joins with a woman, consummates the marriage and lives as a couple. There were quite a few differences between the customs and laws of contemporary North Americans and of ancient Israelites. In ancient Israel:

--Inter-faith marriages were theoretically forbidden. However, they were sometimes formed.
--Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate.
--Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that developed during a period of courtship.
--A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could not be proven to be one was stoned to death by the men of her village. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.

2. Polygyny marriage: A man would leave his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as finances allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired. The new wives would join the man and his other wives in an already established household. Polygyny was practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, until the practice was suspended, a least temporarily, in the late 19th century. It is still practiced by separated fundamentalist Mormon groups which have been excommunicated from the main church.

There are many references to polygynous marriages in the Bible:

--Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives.
--Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included:
Esau with 3 wives;
Jacob: 2;
Ashur: 2;
Gideon: many;
Elkanah: 2;
David: many;
Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;
Rehaboam: 3;
Abijah: 14.
Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives.

We have been unable to find references to polyandrous marriages in the Bible -- unions involving one woman and more than one man. It is unlikely that many existed because of the distinctly inferior status given to women; they were often treated as property in the Hebrew Scriptures.

3. Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law." This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations. If there were feelings of attraction and love between the woman and her new husband, this arrangement could be quite agreeable to both. Otherwise, the woman would have to endure what was essentially serial rapes with her former brother-in-law as perpetrator. Their first-born son was considered to be sired by the deceased husband. In Genesis 38:6-10, Tamar's husband Er was killed by God for unspecified sinful behavior. Er's brother, Onan, was then required by custom to marry Tamar. Not wanting to have a child who would not be consider his, he engaged in an elementary (and quite unreliable) method of birth control: coitis interruptus. God appears to have given a very high priority to the levirate marriage obligation. Being very displeased with Onan's behavior, God killed him as well. Ruth 4 reveals that a man would be required to enter into a levirate marriage not only with his late brother's widow, but with a widow to whom he was the closest living relative.

4. A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased earlier in Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose of her as she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a type of wife, so that Abram would have an heir. Presumably, the arrangement to marry and engage in sexual activity was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to what she probably felt were serial rapes by Abram. Hagar conceived and bore a son, Ishmael. This type of marriage had some points of similarity to polygamous marriage, as described above. However, Hagar's status as a human slave in a plural marriage with two free individuals makes it sufficiently different to warrant separate treatment here.

5. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These women held an even lower status than a wife. As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, "A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought...[from] her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free." 1 They would probably be brought into an already-established household. Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

6. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18 describes how army of the ancient Israelites killed every adult Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter in cold blood of most of the captives, including all of the male children who numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women - all virgins -- were spared. Some of the latter were given to the priests as slaves. Most were taken by the Israeli soldiers as captives of war. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month has passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife. It is conceivable that in a few cases, a love bond might have formed between the soldier and his captive(s). However, in most cases we can assume that the woman had to submit sexually against her will; that is, she was raped.

7. A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. A man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her.

8. A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. The arrangement would probably involve rape in most cases. In the times of the Hebrew Scriptures, Israelite women who were sold into slavery by their fathers were slaves forever. Men, and women who became slaves by another route, were limited to serving as slaves for seven years. When a male slave left his owner, the marriage would normally be terminated; his wife would stay behind, with any children that she had. He could elect to stay a slave if he wished.

I especially love the one about the rapist marrying his victim.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-11-2005, 01:16 PM   #55
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Along those lines, Melon, I find it interesting that Christians will follow one part of the Old Testement and not the other parts. It's easy to bitch about those gays wanting to get married while you eat your shrimp and cheeseburgers -- both of which are not kosher and therefore against the Old Testement law. I guess a cheeseburger is just easier to swallow than two men kissing.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 09-11-2005, 01:19 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 PM
What amuses me more is that Christians invented some arbitrary line where they expect enforcement of some part of the Mosaic Law and not others.

If we invalidated the purity codes, as according to Christian tradition, then the anti-gay prohibitions are in there too and equally invalidated.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:15 AM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




however, i'm more of a pragmatist. if the public will only accept civil unions, and a civil unions will allow gay people to adopt each other's children, visit the other in the hospital, make life-or-death decisions, prevent spiteful parents from stealing a deceased partner's assets from the widow/er, and most importantly *protect* the children of the gay couple, then we need civil unions now to protect families.

I think all marriages done at county buildings/ courthouses, etc
should be civil unions with the same impact as marriage laws.


let the religious bigots exclude whom ever they want from their services/ practices.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 10:11 AM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



I think all marriages done at county buildings/ courthouses, etc
should be civil unions with the same impact as marriage laws.


let the religious bigots exclude whom ever they want from their services/ practices.


i think you've accurately predicted the future.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 10:15 AM   #59
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i think you've accurately predicted the future.
Alan Dershowitz wrote a very sensible piece about that very thing at least a year ago. To me, it makes perfect sense. In fact, other countries (Mexico, Thailand, India, many African countries) already do it this way and have done it for a while--that religious/cultural/social ceremonies are not deemed legally valid until the couple has a separate civil ceremony, performed and registered by a judge or other official.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 10:41 AM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax


Alan Dershowitz wrote a very sensible piece about that very thing at least a year ago. To me, it makes perfect sense. In fact, other countries (Mexico, Thailand, India, many African countries) already do it this way and have done it for a while--that religious/cultural/social ceremonies are not deemed legally valid until the couple has a separate civil ceremony, performed and registered by a judge or other official.

totally.

which is why people crowing on about the "sanctity" of marriage are full of poo. marriage is only sacred in the eyes of the church and perhaps of the participants; there is *nothing* sacred about a legal and financial arrangement between two people.

heck, where do you think the word "in-law" comes from?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

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 11:51 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