equality blooms with spring

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by deep

and by the way

the Founders were just a bunch of drunken whore mongering slobs

no better or worse than you or I

If "drunken whore mongering" is our common denominator than it must be one's deeds in between the bottles and the broads that separate the Ben Franklins, Martin Luther Kings, Edgar Allan Poes, Frank Sinatras, Clarke Gables and Babe Ruths from you and I.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by martha

But do we apply this to other issues of Constitutional protection? To wait and see how it goes, mean while generations of people wait to see if their Constitutional protection doesn't offend the majority?

I dunno about this reasoning - how come the constitution doesn't protect the rights of the unborn in spite of the wishes of the majority of the US electorate? That's not something you want to bring into the ambit of constitutional protections, I'd guess, because it doesn't suit your particular opinions about what should and shouldn't be brought into the remit of constitutional protection.

Faux-sentimentalism, I'm afraid, is not a debate winner.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Both to some degree. I've never said there haven't been equal protection or discrimination issues that required action. Nor would I begrudge same-sex marriage advocates the opportunity to advance their case. I do, however, have serious worries about their methods. Those being law by judicial fiat, denigration of tradition views & customs and social bullying.

So part civil rights, part loosing of sexual mores but I'd add a third component. Identity politics.

The same idenitity politics by the way that made AIDS a medical AND political issue when it should never have been. And yes, both sides are to blame.

Hold on, you claim diversity is a two-way street??

You fail, because you forgot only the left can talk about diversity.

[martha]

Originally Posted by financeguy

I dunno about this reasoning - how come the constitution doesn't protect the rights of the unborn in spite of the wishes of the majority of the US electorate?

Find a new song.



ETA: Here's a heads-up for you, financeguy. This is my last response to your baiting and unrelated posts. I'm not going to put you on actual ignore, because when you're talking about shit you actually know about, you're interesting. So, from now on, when I don't respond to your unrelated bullshit about the "rights of the unborn," you can pretend you finally got me! That should make your day.

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Other states, and the country as a whole, can then monitor the results and in time -- now with some knowledge and experience -- adopt, modify or completely reject what they see.

Federalism. Why it's the forgotten 10th Amendment.

Originally Posted by INDY500

Martin Luther King.

This is what I want to know. How would MLK have responded to your exhortations to wait and see how full Constitutional protections for black Americans were received by the white majority? Those full Constitutional protections still don't fare too well in Mississippi; they do require court intervention, and the electorate isn't usually all that happy with it.

What would you say to him?

[yolland]

Originally Posted by INDY500

law by judicial fiat

How was this case critically different from any other instance of someone suing their county or state on the grounds that their constitutional rights were violated? Should states be able to arbitrarily declare particular subjects of legislation ineligible for judicial redress?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i just thought this was interesting

I watched that show too, I think that's a very interesting show. The only "comforting" factor is that people hesitate to become involved on that show across all types of situations. Of course it's not actually comforting that people are equal opportunity in that way.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Those being law by judicial fiat, denigration of tradition views & customs and social bullying.

can you give an example of any SCOTUS decision that isn't a "judicial fiat"?

further, can you give me an example of said "denigration" and "bullying"?

because gay people were never bullied ...

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

I dunno about this reasoning - how come the constitution doesn't protect the rights of the unborn in spite of the wishes of the majority of the US electorate? That's not something you want to bring into the ambit of constitutional protections, I'd guess, because it doesn't suit your particular opinions about what should and shouldn't be brought into the remit of constitutional protection.

Faux-sentimentalism, I'm afraid, is not a debate winner.

i'm afraid that you've just made your own argument -- there are many groups in the US who are trying, very hard, to use the courts to give the fetus the same status as a human being, you'll see this in cases when a pregnant mother is killed. they advocate for treating such a murder as two murders because two individuals have been killed.

simply because marriage equality cases have been quite convincing to many different state SC's across the country means just that -- they've been successful, and especially at a time when the courts have been stacked by the GOP. could it be that marriage equality folks simply have a logically sound argument that's incredibly persuasive and the "pro-life/anti-choice" folks haven't been as successful?

either way, i can guarantee you that it isn't martha's fault. nor does one have much to do with the other.

everyone uses the courts. this is why they are there. this is why we don't vote on civil rights or the rights of the minority. i think we should take a vote to see if we should let Irish Ron Paul supporters be able to post in FYM. would you live with the results? or would it take someone to protect your right to post against the tyranny of the majority.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

further, can you give me an example of said "denigration" and "bullying"?

We could start with Prop 8... I mean Prop Hate.

Why did the San Francisco Chronicle and several websites feel the need to publish the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of the proposition 8 if not to intimidate?

Oh, and I'm still trying to figure out while in the same speech Sean Penn thinks I should feel "great shame" but President Obama (who also opposes same-sex marriage) is "an elegant man."

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

We could start with Prop 8... I mean Prop Hate.

Why did the San Francisco Chronicle and several websites feel the need to publish the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of the proposition 8 if not to intimidate?

Oh, and I'm still trying to figure out while in the same speech Sean Penn thinks I should feel "great shame" but President Obama (who also opposes same-sex marriage) is "an elegant man."

so now political protest and public information and celebrities who make speeches at the Oscars makes you feel threatened and intimidated?

and i thought we were the drama queens.

are you going to compare this to the rhetoric that comes out of the Right on this issue? the whole "destruction of society" and whatnot?

[martha]

INDY, are you going to address the other questions people have asked of you?

[deep]

Originally Posted by INDY500

We could start with Prop 8... I mean Prop Hate.

Why did the San Francisco Chronicle and several websites feel the need to publish the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of the proposition 8 if not to intimidate?

every donation I ever made is on line now, it has always been.(for as long as I can remember been available to the public, they make one complete a form when one donates)

I think about my donations, especially when they are for local races and I know and am friends with more than one candidate.
Donations of $99 and less are not published, sometimes I go that route.

If this information was not available the "right" and religious people would be real upset.
They like to target people that support "pro choice", 'gun control' and 'pro immigration' and the like.

I do agree Prop 8 was Prop 'Hate'.
It was 'hate' that fueled it and 'hate' that made the pro 8 people donate. They will tell you it is 'hate' the sin. But it is still 'hate' directed at people.
Because 'sin' requires people doing so-called 'sinful' behavior.
Note this "sinful" behavior in question is perfectly legal and deemed by science and medicine to be natural.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by deep

Note this "sinful" behavior in question is perfectly legal and deemed by science and medicine to be natural.

Science and medicine pffffft

Nothing but liberal safe havens.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

so now political protest and public information and celebrities who make speeches at the Oscars makes you feel threatened and intimidated?

and i thought we were the drama queens.

are you going to compare this to the rhetoric that comes out of the Right on this issue? the whole "destruction of society" and whatnot?

Except many of these people have actually been physically or verbally intimidated. And for nothing more than participating in the democratic process.

And unless you can name me a Hollywood celebrity who publicly endorsed Prop 8 then I guess we can assume there is a de facto blacklist in place. Remember when those were a bad thing?

The "destruction of society" (your term) isn't anti-gay as it as been applied to other deviations from traditional marriage as well such as high divorce rates and out of wedlock births. Which, while maybe not "destroying," are certainly having detrimental effects on society are they not?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by deep

every donation I ever made is on line now, it has always been.(for as long as I can remember been available to the public, they make one complete a form when one donates)

I think about my donations, especially when they are for local races and I know and am friends with more than one candidate.
Donations of $99 and less are not published, sometimes I go that route.

If this information was not available the "right" and religious people would be real upset.
They like to target people that support "pro choice", 'gun control' and 'pro immigration' and the like.

I do agree Prop 8 was Prop 'Hate'.
It was 'hate' that fueled it and 'hate' that made the pro 8 people donate. They will tell you it is 'hate' the sin. But it is still 'hate' directed at people.
Because 'sin' requires people doing so-called 'sinful' behavior.
Note this "sinful" behavior in question is perfectly legal and deemed by science and medicine to be natural.

"Prop 8 Maps" Outs Supporters of Proposition 8
January 15, 2009 by Mark Whittington

Prop 8 Maps is a project that uses Google Maps and the public list of donors who contributed money to Proposition 8 in San Francisco to provide a map pinpointing the addresses of the donors throughout San Francisco.

Proposition 8 was a measure recently approved by the people of California defining marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, thus banning the practice of same sex marriage in California. The passage of Prop 8 has angered many gay activists and their allies and"Prop 8 Maps" Outs Supporters of Proposition 8 has led to ugly incidents, including angry demonstrations in front of Mormon Churches

The purpose of Prop 8 Maps appears to be to out people who contributed money to the passage of Prop 8 and to provide an easy way to locate them. Thus, people who supported Prop 8 with money can be subject to harassment, demonstrations, and perhaps worse. The theory is that they will think twice before doing it again.

Naturally the people behind Prop 8 Maps prefer to remain anonymous.

Those of us who give their opinion for a living are very used to anonymous people expressing their ire. The nature of the Internet allows people to express the most outrageous sentiments and to hide behind a pseudonym to protect themselves. Most of this sort of thing consists of angry emails and postings in comments sections and can be laughed off.

Prop 8 Maps is something else entirely. Feelings over the passage of Prop 8 have run so high in certain quarters, Prop 8 Maps actually place people who supported Prop 8 with money in physical danger. At the very least, people who gave money for the passage of Prop 8 can expect people camped in their front lawns yelling at them as they go to and fro on their business. They can also expect retaliation at their places of work/business. Death threats and perhaps actual attempts at mayhem can follow.

Writing as someone who is sympathetic to the idea of same sex marriage, one cannot express strongly enough how stupid and counter-productive this tactic is. It will backfire, especially if someone comes to harm as a result.

EightMaps.com.

Let's get 'em !!

[deep]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Except many of these people have actually been physically or verbally intimidated. And for nothing more than participating in the democratic process.

ok, that does sound kind of bad

how do you think it equates with having their marriage rights taken away from them?

you mention divorce, well those divorced people choose to be divorced

what if these people you seem to be concerned about had their marriages dissolved by a controversial public vote funded by left-wing extremist,
that just don't like 'closed-minded', religious people and believe the Government should not support or recognize their chosen life style?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by deep

how do you think it equates with having their marriage rights taken away from them?

Not gonna restart the whole argument but if they had any less rights than you or I then I'd agree. They have the same right to marry anyone I do, just not...

you mention divorce, well those divorced people choose to be divorced

what if these people you seem to be concerned about had their marriages dissolved by a controversial public vote funded left-wing extremist, that just don't like 'closed-minded', religious people and believe the Government should not support or recognize their chosen life style?

Would there be 1,500 years of law and tradition behind that?

[BVS]

Tradition don't mean shit!!! I'm so tired of that excuse, it's weak.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Except many of these people have actually been physically or verbally intimidated. And for nothing more than participating in the democratic process.

would you like to cite your sources? one or two idiots outside of a Mormon church is not at all indicative of an entire movement, nor are Christians who go to the Castro right as the bars are closing to "pray" for the people on the streets exactly doing anything other than asking for people to shout at them.

ever been to a pro-life or pro-choice march? you'll see lots of verbal intimidation. please show me a contentious social issue in which both sides discuss the issue by mutually affirming the worth and value of the other side's argument.

i guess we're going to hold the gays (and their straight allies) to a higher standard.

And unless you can name me a Hollywood celebrity who publicly endorsed Prop 8 then I guess we can assume there is a de facto blacklist in place. Remember when those were a bad thing?

or maybe it's just really unpopular in Hollywood given the fact that most people in the arts work with gay people all the time.

you can assume all you want, but does it surprise you that such a thing would be unpopular amongst the "Hollywood Left"?

The "destruction of society" (your term) isn't anti-gay as it as been applied to other deviations from traditional marriage as well such as high divorce rates and out of wedlock births. Which, while maybe not "destroying," are certainly having detrimental effects on society are they not?

what do gay people have to do with high divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births? and are you going to claim that any deviation from "traditional" marriage -- which i guess we have to assume means 13 year old girls, no interracial marriage, no inter-faith marriage -- is somehow a bad thing?

i guess there is some comfort in living by the rules of a medieval polity in a totalist universe where everything reflects the same understood and unquestioned Truth, where all questions have answers, and all human needs are exactly the same and gender roles are rigid and defined and enduring and natural and God-given, and yet at the same time, so fragile that we need to reinforce said gender roles with likewise rigid and defined laws. if human nature is so enduring, if homosexuality is such an unnatural thing, then surely nature will win?

if you want to make the argument that sex is only for reproduction and that marriage is only for the rearing of biological offspring, go ahead and do so. i don't think that's an argument you're going to win with most of contemporary America (or the contemporary West). perhaps you might find points of commonality with other religiously reactionary cultures in the Middle East and Central Asia?

or maybe you can first show me the "detrimental effects" that gay people have on society.