SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - 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 09-28-2008, 03:04 PM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
Dude, it's bad out there. What with the collapse of our society and all, I've taken to hiding in my house.




there, there. here, have a lolly.

now, tell us, just what have the gays done to your country.

you can tell us. you're amongst friends.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-28-2008, 03:09 PM   #47
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 04:42 PM
You can't step outside your door without seeing a gay wedding! Seriously. Since the law came into effect, everyone wants to be a married gay! We have like 5 straight people left in the country now! They've even gotten to my cats - the other day, one of the boys humped another boy!

On the up side, the whole nation has been decorated with tulle, ribbons and tea lights, so there's that.
__________________

__________________
VintagePunk is online now  
Old 09-28-2008, 03:52 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Was my proposal dismissed out of hand?
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 03:53 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
You can't step outside your door without seeing a gay wedding! Seriously. Since the law came into effect, everyone wants to be a married gay! We have like 5 straight people left in the country now! They've even gotten to my cats - the other day, one of the boys humped another boy!

On the up side, the whole nation has been decorated with tulle, ribbons and tea lights, so there's that.

Win.
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 03:54 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post


there, there. here, have a lolly.

now, tell us, just what have the gays done to your country.

you can tell us. you're amongst friends.

I've already told you my complaints. If I have one more hair girl ask me if I want to 'do something about my eyebrows' I'm gonna stab her in the heart with her own scissors.
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 04:41 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Was women's suffrage a bogus right? After all, they never had it before, there was no precedent for it in our country. Was equal protection for African Americans a bogus right? They'd never had it before - no precedent for it in our country.
Quote:
If someone stated that they thought federal laws about race were "bogus" and that their rights were being taken away because of it, would you agree?
Which is exactly what happened as the 13th, 14th and 15 amendments which guaranteed equal protection and equal rights for blacks began to be undermined by the states through Jim Crow and other laws and, AND, believe it or not, judicial activism working in the other direction to strip away rights under "bogus" pretenses. That was the basis of the Civil Rights struggle, to regain what was promised but never delivered after the Civil War and Emancipation. That is the Promised Land that MLK spoke of.

No one has possessed the right to marry a member of their own sex. Not even rich white guys. If you don't believe me let's just look at the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. (that document that U2 and critics of Gitmo and Bush love to quote)
Quote:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Nothing about orientation as far as marriage goes.


As for Women's suffrage. Please note how it was accomplished.
NOT by judicial fiat but by legislation. Several states began to allow women to vote which then led to the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution which extended the right of suffrage to women nationwide. It wasn't a fast process, stretching out some 40 years, but it should serve as the example to same-sex advocates.
Lobby Congress, support candidates that will further your cause, give to advocacy groups, persuade others over to your point of view.
But let's not go down the path abortion took in the 70's. 35 years later and it's still a contentious issue.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 04:46 PM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,542
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
No one has possessed the right to marry a member of their own sex. Not even rich white guys. If you don't believe me let's just look at the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. (that document that U2 and critics of Gitmo and Bush love to quote)

Quote:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Nothing about orientation as far as marriage goes.
Exactly, there's nothing in that declaration stating that marriage is just between a man and a woman. So why do you want to limit it then?
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 04:56 PM   #53
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
As for Women's suffrage. Please note how it was accomplished.
NOT by judicial fiat but by legislation. Several states began to allow women to vote which then led to the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution which extended the right of suffrage to women nationwide. It wasn't a fast process, stretching out some 40 years, but it should serve as the example to same-sex advocates.
Lobby Congress, support candidates that will further your cause, give to advocacy groups, persuade others over to your point of view.

You thinking that it was acceptable to the gals to wait forty years to be "allowed" to vote is incredible. Perhaps they are taking it as an example, just not the way you think they should. Perhaps the ridiculousness of the wait for suffrage is the example they're taking to heart.

Maybe you'd prefer everyone to just wait until you can wrap your head around the idea of equal rights?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 05:10 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,286
Local Time: 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Which is exactly what happened as the 13th, 14th and 15 amendments which guaranteed equal protection and equal rights for blacks began to be undermined by the states through Jim Crow and other laws and, AND, believe it or not, judicial activism working in the other direction to strip away rights under "bogus" pretenses. That was the basis of the Civil Rights struggle, to regain what was promised but never delivered after the Civil War and Emancipation. That is the Promised Land that MLK spoke of.

No one has possessed the right to marry a member of their own sex. Not even rich white guys. If you don't believe me let's just look at the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. (that document that U2 and critics of Gitmo and Bush love to quote)


Nothing about orientation as far as marriage goes.


As for Women's suffrage. Please note how it was accomplished.
NOT by judicial fiat but by legislation. Several states began to allow women to vote which then led to the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution which extended the right of suffrage to women nationwide. It wasn't a fast process, stretching out some 40 years, but it should serve as the example to same-sex advocates.
Lobby Congress, support candidates that will further your cause, give to advocacy groups, persuade others over to your point of view.
But let's not go down the path abortion took in the 70's. 35 years later and it's still a contentious issue.
If the SCOTUS had ruled the other way on Roe v Wade, would you feel the same?

Also, it's curious that in all of this 'lawyers in robes' and 'no legislation from the bench' talk, you haven't made a single mention of Bush v. Gore from 2000. That was a nine-person vote for president, and everyone knows it. That decision had nothing to do with interpreting any law, no matter what they say. It was judicial mandate that gave Bush the presidency AGAINST the will of the people(since Gore won the popular vote)! But your guy benefited. I don't see you complaining about that. Yeah, I'm still pissed about it.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 05:12 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
You thinking that it was acceptable to the gals to wait forty years to be "allowed" to vote is incredible. Perhaps they are taking it as an example, just not the way you think they should. Perhaps the ridiculousness of the wait for suffrage is the example they're taking to heart.

Maybe you'd prefer everyone to just wait until you can wrap your head around the idea of equal rights?
I didn't say it was acceptable, I was only pointing out an historical fact. But everything, including legislation, moves at a much faster pace today.

It's also a fact that Roe turned abortion into a political issue in a way that would never have happened had it become law through legislations. Do we ever hear about a "litmus test" for Supreme Court nominees for women's suffrage?
Amending the Constitution, while more time consuming, seems to be in the long run a pretty good investment.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 05:32 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
If the SCOTUS had ruled the other way on Roe v Wade, would you feel the same?

Also, it's curious that in all of this 'lawyers in robes' and 'no legislation from the bench' talk, you haven't made a single mention of Bush v. Gore from 2000. That was a nine-person vote for president, and everyone knows it. That decision had nothing to do with interpreting any law, no matter what they say. It was judicial mandate that gave Bush the presidency AGAINST the will of the people(since Gore won the popular vote)! But your guy benefited. I don't see you complaining about that. Yeah, I'm still pissed about it.
Oh SHUT UP!

The Supreme Court did not give Bush the presidency .... God did.
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 05:39 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
If you the SCOTUS had ruled the other way on Roe v Wade, would you feel the same?
Their answer should have been that the constitution is silent on abortion and therefore an issue up to the people and their elected representatives to decide. Could be complete prohibition or abortion on demand through the full 9 months, either being "constitutional."

Quote:
Also, it's curious that in all of this 'lawyers in robes' and 'no legislation from the bench' talk, you haven't made a single mention of Bush v. Gore from 2000. That was a nine-person vote for president, and everyone knows it. That decision had nothing to do with interpreting any law, no matter what they say. It was judicial mandate that gave Bush the presidency AGAINST the will of the people(since Gore won the popular vote)! But your guy benefited. I don't see you complaining about that. Yeah, I'm still pissed about it.
Please, it's been 8 years, The Supreme court (7-2 by the way, not even close) only stopped a recount which the Florida Supreme Court had mistakenly ordered in clear violation of Florida election laws. Anyway, Bush won by vote as well regardless of what that HBO movie Recount suggested.

USATODAY.com - Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - New York Times

I'm sure Oliver Stone's treatment of the 2000 election will hold even less regard for the facts.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 07:00 PM   #58
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I didn't say it was acceptable, I was only pointing out an historical fact.
This seems like a dodge--if you're going to say that the legislative route is the model to follow, then you're pretty clearly saying that imposing that restriction is acceptable.

Do you think the reason why suffragists and black civil rights activists were willing to expend all that time and effort (and in the latter case, lives as well) securing the passage of the 19th Amendment, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was because they believed wholeheartedly in the rights of men and whites to decide whether women and blacks were worthy of equal legal status? That they wanted to make sure their rightful superiors were the ones to decide whether to let them into the club?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 07:23 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:42 PM
I disagree...

The point about legislation verses court imposed is a valid one. When legislation has been used the issue seems to be clearly over. Amendments to the constitution seem to do their job forging lasting change.

Change through the judicial process never seems to go away.

I am not saying that I expect anyone to wait for equality. God bless those who suffered while they have waited.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 07:50 PM   #60
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:42 PM
I think you may be misreading my point--I wasn't arguing that the legislative route isn't sometimes necessitated by circumstances, nor was I denying that Constitutional amendments and major pieces of legislation are generally harder to roll back than case law precedents. Rather I was pointing out the offensiveness of saying, 'I applaud the suffragists/black civil rights activists/whoever for doing the right thing by submitting their case for equality to a vote, so that men's and whites' liberties to decide if they wished to grant that status wouldn't be infringed upon.' You wouldn't find many activists from either movement agreeing that they should have had to do it that way; on the contrary, it is shameful that they had to do it at all.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland 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 04:42 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