SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 22 - 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 10-11-2008, 09:27 AM   #316
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
This vote is about giving rights and respect to same-sex couples.
It boggles my mind that you can understand this and yet still not know which way you will vote on this proposition. Legalising same sex marriage really does boil down to respecting gays and lesbians as completely human and as full members of society. We can't fully respect those we think of as lesser beings, and withholding validation of same sex relationships is a clear sign that is exactly what gays and lesbians are considered. I cannot fathom how treating some people as lesser beings is good for anyone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Hey guess what, I feel tribute bands should be banned. Many agree with me, should we make it law?

Why would anyone want to ban tribute bands?
Well, they are the enemy of art after all, so that's reason enough to ban them.
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 10:59 AM   #317
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by indra View Post



Well, they are the enemy of art after all, so that's reason enough to ban them.
I was thinking of that thread as I was typing that...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:30 PM   #318
War Child
 
TheEdge U2JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by indra View Post
It boggles my mind that you can understand this and yet still not know which way you will vote on this proposition.

For me, there's more to it than just this and it is not just an issues of religion or bias or whatever other BS that typically gets thrown out. I have chosen not to get in to my questions and thought process on the conservative side because 1. its too much to try to type and express in a post without it being unclear or misunderstood. 2. I'm not in the mood to have my views and the process I am using to decide what I want to do called venomous or biased or the like. As I said before, I respect everyones opinion even if it does not agree with mine. It's a shame that that there are some on here that are unable to do likewise. Seems more that a little ironic that you are fighting for gay rights and want conservatives, to respect their rights and opinions even if they don't agree with them but you cannot do the same for the conservative rights and opinions that you do not agree with. The word hypocritical comes to mind.
__________________
TheEdge U2JT is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:36 PM   #319
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
I don't begrudge gay people (who even in a mean country like America teeming with homophobes) have found increasing acceptance from taking the next step and seeking legally recognized marriage as it's not without it's merits. But I do resent how it's being done (through judicial activism rather than democratic means, denigrating religious morals and slandering same-sex marriage opponents as modern-day Bull Connors.)
That's me on 9/27 earlier in this thread and sure enough, on 10/9 from irvine we get
Quote:
the state of california forcibly eradicating hundreds of thousands of marriages would be the equivalent of Bull Connor turning the fire hoses and dogs on civil rights activists.
which is insulting both to the citizens of Californian and the victims of racial segregation in this country's history. Not to mention just plain wrong. In the California decision it was noted that the state's domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law." In other words, equal protection. That's your fallback position. Did blacks in Birmingham have anything approaching equal protection or equal rights under the law in 1963?

And now another state (Connecticut, the 3rd) has seen their state Supreme Court (by a 1 vote margin for the 3rd time) strike down their state's marriage laws. Not only had Connecticut's legislature not recognized same-sex marriage when it instituted civil unions just a few years earlier but the state's governor, Jodi Rell, said she personally disagreed with the decision and further stated “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut." So, if the people and their elected officials oppose same-sex marriage then how did it become law?

Well, it was imposed upon them. Writing for the majority, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote “...our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.” Robert D. McFadden in the NY Times actually called this "language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century."

Excuse me, pardon me, but shouldn't the realm of judges be, you know, confined to the "legal landscape"? Is that really too much to expect? Apparently so, because four judges have just told the legislature, the governor, the people Connecticut and their combined laws, traditions and moral systems to... take a hike... piss off. That they, and they alone, possess "contemporary appreciation" of rights. That they, and they alone, understand the definition of marriage. And that they, and they alone will decide the timetable to advance "social justice for a new century."

If you believe:

-- Gays living under civil unions laws to be the equivalent of blacks living under Jim Crow laws.

-- Judges should empathize from the bench rather than limit themselves to the law.

-- Autocracy a better form of government than constitutional democracy.

Than Friday was a really good day for you.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:47 PM   #320
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: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”
Just highlighting the important parts of your post for you.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:54 PM   #321
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: 02:24 PM
See, Indy, at least you stick to your guns. You don't want equal protection for a class of people, so you're willing to write them out of California's constitution. You're willing to alter a state's constitution to include prejudice and exclusion. Not everyone's willing to admit to that.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:13 PM   #322
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Just highlighting the important parts of your post for you.
Of coarse you left out the preceeding words

“more contemporary appreciation of..."

I.e, that is to say, read into the state constitution a meaning that heretofore had gone unnoticed by all previous state Supreme Courts and legislatures.

see also: legal sleight-of-hand, judicial activism, creating law rather than interpreting law, legislating from the bench and creating rights without all that rigamarole about amending the constitution.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:18 PM   #323
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 05:24 PM
INDY you seem to have a problem with the common law legal system.

Perhaps France would be better suited for you?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:22 PM   #324
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
INDY you seem to have a problem with the common law legal system.

Perhaps France would be better suited for you?
Peut-être.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:23 PM   #325
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 05:24 PM
Indy...do you think that it is more important for the law to reflect the will of the people than it is for the law to be RIGHT?
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:28 PM   #326
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: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Of coarse you left out the preceeding words

creating rights without all that rigamarole about amending the constitution.
Of course, you left out the equal protection clause of all these constitutions. Or are you the one who gets to choose who that applies to?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:39 PM   #327
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
Indy...do you think that it is more important for the law to reflect the will of the people than it is for the law to be RIGHT?
Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be decided by a margin of 4 unelected judges to 3 unelected judges?

Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be debated by lawyers in a closed courtroom rather than amongst citizens and their elected legislators in a public forum.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:47 PM   #328
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Quote:
which is insulting both to the citizens of Californian and the victims of racial segregation in this country's history. Not to mention just plain wrong. In the California decision it was noted that the state's domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law." In other words, equal protection. That's your fallback position. Did blacks in Birmingham have anything approaching equal protection or equal rights under the law in 1963?
Gays have virtually all the legal rights of married couples in California. Why can't these gays just understand that when it comes to marriage, they are separate but equal?

Quote:
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
The crux of Brown v. Board of Education declared that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal, regardless of the actual conditions.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:54 PM   #329
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
In the California decision it was noted that the state's domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law." In other words, equal protection.
In what world does "virtually" mean equal?

It sounds like separate but not equal to me.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:56 PM   #330
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: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be decided by a margin of 4 unelected judges to 3 unelected judges?

Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be debated by lawyers in a closed courtroom rather than amongst citizens and their elected legislators in a public forum.

I dunno. Ask the good folks of Topeka, Kansas. Their RIGHT to discriminate was eliminated by the activist Supreme Court. Ask the citizens of Montgomery, Alabama. Their RIGHT to ride in the front of the bus was eliminated by the Supreme Court.

Neither of these groups had any democratic say in their RIGHTS being terminated.
__________________

__________________
martha 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 05:24 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