the conservative case for same sex marriage - Page 27 - 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 08-05-2010, 02:25 PM   #391
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Oh and Nathan, care to comment yet on this example of the "will of the people" and "representative democracy" yet?

California Proposition 14 (1963) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I ask, and you demur, so carefully. Another case of the "will of the people" getting turned over by those damn activist judges.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 02:29 PM   #392
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
And the property tax revenue lost from people no longer having to file their house as "Semi-Homesteaded" meaning they have a "renter." Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Nice.
We bought our house from a Lesbian couple that were breaking up and had to get the house converted to full "Homesteaded" to get the sale to go through.

I never would have known about that legal crap if not for our house--institutionalized discrimination--the only way they got their mortgage to work was to have one of the partners be a renter.
__________________

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 02:37 PM   #393
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
We bought our house from a Lesbian couple that were breaking up and had to get the house converted to full "Homesteaded" to get the sale to go through.

I never would have known about that legal crap if not for our house--institutionalized discrimination--the only way they got their mortgage to work was to have one of the partners be a renter.
Oh my God.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 02:41 PM   #394
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
I never would have known about that legal crap if not for our house--institutionalized discrimination--the only way they got their mortgage to work was to have one of the partners be a renter.



(stuff i need to catch up on)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 02:42 PM   #395
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Oh and Nathan, care to comment yet on this example of the "will of the people" and "representative democracy" yet?

California Proposition 14 (1963) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I ask, and you demur, so carefully. Another case of the "will of the people" getting turned over by those damn activist judges.

I was 8 years old and remember that fairly well.

There were 'reasonable' non-racist* arguments for Prop 14.

They went like this,

The Government has no business telling me who I can sell my house to.

If two people want to buy my house and if one of them is a long time friend and I sell to him, I can be charged with a crime if the other person happens to be colored.

A man's home is his castle, he should be free to sell it to whoever he chooses.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 02:45 PM   #396
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
thinkprogress.org

Conservatives Blame Loss In Prop 8 Case On Judge’s Homosexuality

Last night, after U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, supporters of Proposition 8 expressed disappointment and pledged to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and all the way up to the Supreme Court.

But some conservative activists lashed out against Walker, using his sexual orientation to dismiss the decision altogether:

American Families Association: “It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society.

National Organization For Marriage: Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.”

POWERLINE:“Conservatives have long said that the day would come when liberal judges declare the Constitution unconstitutional. That happened today, when a gay federal judge in San Francisco, relying on the opinions of mostly-gay ‘expert’ witnesses, ruled that an amendment to the California constitution, which was adopted in perfectly proper fashion by a substantial majority of voters, is ‘unconstitutional.’

Bishop Harry Jackson, chair of “Stand for Marriage DC”: “The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of black voters in California, have just had their core civil right — the right to vote — stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people…this is a travesty of justice.”

Pat Buchanan: It is unnatural….an older white guy handed down the decision and he happened to be gay. That might have had something to do with it.
As I predicted.

These FUCKERS wouldn't dare say that (out loud) about a black judge on a civil rights case.


Or would they in today's "post-racial" climate? After all, the election of a black president is proof that the US is beyond race now, right?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 02:58 PM   #397
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
National Organization For Marriage: Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.


other things our so-called Founding Fathers would be shocked by:

1. that women are supposed to have equal rights with men.
2. that there are nine planets in our solar system
3. that blacks are free and can legally marry white people
4. that when you get a cold or the flu doctors don't bleed you to get the bad blood out.
5. that the American Government allows people to be held and not charged for an indefinite time.
6. that corporations have attained 'person' status rights.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 02:59 PM   #398
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 12:44 PM
speaking of blacks 'n gays, here's an almost breathtaking post by Ta-Nehisi Coates on the whole subject:



Quote:
Race And Gay Marriage In Perspective

Aug 3 2010, 7:28 AM ET | Comment

I woke up at two this morning, thinking about the the thread below, which got a little heated after a commenter argued that the fallen ban against interracial marriage made for a bad comparison with gay marriage. I've argued in the past that it was actually a very good comparison, but as I thought about it this morning, I found the analogy less convincing.

Let us, first, stipulate that the very endeavor of comparing "gays" and "blacks" is inherently problematic, incomplete and exclusionary. Still, I think some general truths can be teased out here. First, gays are presently waging an imminently just fight for the right to marry within their own community. In 1965, when Loving v Virginia passed, blacks already enjoyed the right to marry within their own community. Moreover, I think it's fair to say that many of blacks, at that time, either preferred it that way or were rather agnostic on the issue.

In 1960, virtually every black person in America, either was directly--and immediately--affected by housing segregation or directly knew someone who was. To the extent that this was true of interracial marriage, it wasn't just true of black people, but white people too. In other words, whatever the justness of the fight for interracial marriage, it was never "a black issue" in the way that, say, voting rights in the South were.

A comparison between gay marriage and the Civil Rights movement may put-off some--some--African-Americans because it misstates the context of Loving vs. Virginia. My sense is that most blacks supported the movement not because they wanted the right to marry white people, but because they wanted the right to compete with them. Indeed, for almost a century blacks actively resisted the notion that civil right equaled interracial marriage, because racists had repeatedly clubbed the movement with charges of miscegenation. Note that in all the protests you see during the Civil Rights movement, very little of it is organized around interracial marriage.

Much worse, the comparison with interracial marriage actually understates the evil of reserving marriage rights for certain classes of people. Banning interracial marriage meant that most black people could not marry outside of their race. This was morally indefensible, but very different than a total exclusion of gays from the institution of marriage. Throughout much of America, gays are effectively banned from marrying, not simply certain types of people, but any another compatible partner period. Unlike heterosexual blacks in 1960, the ban gays suffer under is unconditional and total and effectively offers one word for an entire sector of Americans--Die. For evading that ban means virtual--if not literal--suicide.

A more compelling analogy would be a law barring blacks, not from marrying other whites, but effectively from marrying anyone at all. In fact we have just such an analogy. In the antebellum South, the marriages of the vast majority of African-Americans, much like gays today, held no legal standing. Slavery is obviously, itself, a problem--but abolitionists often, and accurately, noted that among its most heinous features was its utter disrespect for the families of the enslaved. Likewise, systemic homophobia is, itself, a problem--but among its most heinous features is its utter disrespect for the families formed by gays and lesbians. Of course African-Americans, gay and straight, in 1810 lacked many other rights that gays, of all colors, today enjoy. Thus, to state the obvious, being born gay is not the same as being born a slave. But the fact is that in 1810, the vast majority of African-Americans--much like the vast majority of gays in 2010--lacked the ability to legally marry.

My sense is that this is an argument that will sway very few bigots in the black community. But frankly, as black person, I've always considered the logic of my humanity to be my own selfish interest, as opposed to a tool for washing racists. Given that gays are often born into straight families, perhaps my viewpoint is a marker of privilege. Still, I think it's worth considering the limits of reasoning with homophobes. The Civil Rights movement's strategy of appealing to white humanity--which was incredibly effective--has never been my way.

Nationalism is, for good or ill, at my core. Thus I see the fight for marriage rights not as a fight for a squishy, gauzy "tolerance," but as a fight for gay self-determination. The family is not just a building block of civilizations, but a defense against civilizations which, so often, prove themselves unworthy of the name. Thus gay marriage is, to me, not about relieving homophobes of their burdensome ignorance but about the right of gays to defend themselves against that ignorance.

In 1860, alchemists sought to build a country upon (among other things) their right to deprive blacks of their greatest defense--the family. So ardent were they in this hare-brained scheming, that America lost more than half a million of its bravest young men, two percent of its entire population, and arguably its greatest president. Countless, nameless deaths have come in the aftershocks. One hundred and fifty years later, having learned nothing, the alchemists have returned, insistent on their right to perpetrate the exact same folly upon gays.

They must be stopped.


Race And Gay Marriage In Perspective - National - The Atlantic
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 04:33 PM   #399
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
As I predicted.

These FUCKERS wouldn't dare say that (out loud) about a black judge on a civil rights case.


Or would they in today's "post-racial" climate? After all, the election of a black president is proof that the US is beyond race now, right?

Mark this date on your calendar...we agree.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 04:34 PM   #400
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
other things our so-called Founding Fathers would be shocked by:

1. that women are supposed to have equal rights with men.
2. that there are nine planets in our solar system
3. that blacks are free and can legally marry white people
4. that when you get a cold or the flu doctors don't bleed you to get the bad blood out.
5. that the American Government allows people to be held and not charged for an indefinite time.
6. that corporations have attained 'person' status rights.
Hey there old man...there are 8 planets...Pluto lost its right to be called planet.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 05:01 PM   #401
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Mark this date on your calendar...we agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Hey there old man...there are 8 planets...Pluto lost its right to be called planet.
Then Plutonians should be required to recuse themselves from any cases arising from that!
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 05:03 PM   #402
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:44 AM
I'm still grieving over Ceres.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 05:03 PM   #403
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post


(stuff i need to catch up on)
This is 15 years ago now. But, still, I wouldn't doubt that there is plenty of that type of bullshit still going on.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 05:06 PM   #404
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Hey there old man...there are 8 planets...Pluto lost its right to be called planet.
Rightfully so.

Even in a thread about equality, we should all be able to agree that Pluto DOES NOT make the cut. Not a planet.

Kudos to Neil deGrasse-Tyson.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 05:07 PM   #405
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:44 AM
^ an easy jugdement to make by an EARTHling.



Homeosexualist
__________________

__________________
deep 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposition 8 discussion continued yolland Free Your Mind 797 03-03-2009 02:09 PM
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1002 11-08-2008 03:23 PM
Rate my album collection. shart1780 Lemonade Stand Archive 75 02-14-2008 12:07 AM
Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue Headache in a Suitcase Free Your Mind Archive 130 04-15-2003 08:48 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 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