fucking prop 8

i didn't hear anything about it

So, the beginning of the majority ruling makes it sound strictly like a matter of what we legally call 'marriages,' setting aside completely what forms of union we give all the relevant rights and benefits to, where that can still include same-sex unions.

But quibbling over that seems to be missing the very point of the debate, isn't it? Why are people so concerned to earn their unions the title 'marriage,' if they can still legally get all the same political benefits from it qua 'civil union'?

Or can they not, under the California constitution? Is that what I'm missing?

there are a bunch of things that actually make it a difference.

ill find you a link

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

here is one of the big ones though:

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

the ruling was the right one legally speaking. the court did not rule that same-sex marriage should or shouldn't be legal, they simply ruled that prop 8 was procedurally a legal amendment to the constitution. the real blame should be put on the fucked up california constitution that allows itself to be amended by a simple majority at the ballot box. I don't think too many (if any) states have the same amendment by referendum mechanism, so there's no need to worry about a precedent being established.

the funny thing is that there will undoubtedly be another proposition to repeal Prop 8 in the next election cycle. so the only way to defeat this thing is by the same fucked up process that had it passed in the first place. the result is that the california constitution can be amended and un-amended at any time at the whim of the people based simply on who has the most effective commercials. that's a joke.

the U.S. Supreme Court could step in if someone positions a case for them, but I bet they won't any time soon. they'll take the position that marriage is up to the states and stay out of it for now.

i don't give a flying fuck about this either way, but actually thought this article was pretty convincing:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...16/533narty.asp

someone make a gif of Arnold blowing a guy.

It's not convincing... it's some guy's rant.

  playbynumbers said:

i don't give a flying fuck about this either way, but actually thought this article was pretty convincing:

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...16/533narty.asp

really? I would have expected more from you.

look at this sentence and see if you agree:

  Quote

The embrace of homosexuality in Western culture has come about with unbelievable speed--far more rapidly than the feminist revolution or racial equality.

  chenGOD said:

  playbynumbers said:

i don't give a flying fuck about this either way, but actually thought this article was pretty convincing:

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...16/533narty.asp

 

really? I would have expected more from you.

 

look at this sentence and see if you agree:

  Quote

The embrace of homosexuality in Western culture has come about with unbelievable speed--far more rapidly than the feminist revolution or racial equality.

is playbynumbers letting Rook use his account?

but seriously folks if you know a single gay person it's pretty hard not to fall on the pro marriage side of this, unless you staunchly believe government should stay out of marriage entirely.

i LOL everytime i hear a conservative talk show host or something saying 'i have gay friends and im for the sanctity of marriage' because secretly i bet those gay 'friends' of yours secretly hate your fucking bigoted guts.

It's like someone who is clearly racist saying 'i have black friends!'

I read the rest of that article that PBN posted, and I gotta say, big LOL. The author goes on and on about the kinship system, and all the obligations that it poses on a married couple and how wedding rings and ceremonies will never match the penalties and duties the kinship system imposes. Then he comes up with this beauty:

  Quote

Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage--much less three, as I have done--were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

So the kinship system worked so well that he married three times. LOL

the weekly stanard, the place this article comes from is one of the most notoriously neoconservative publications in the world. one of their leading writers, Bill Kristol was a co-author of PNAC's 'rebuilding america's defenses' who many correctly point to as laying the ground work for the entire Bush administration's foriegn policy

PBN you're slipping man

  catsonearth said:

complete and utter bullshit. as if you need any more proof that this country's supposed ideals are just a sham.

your country is ruled by a computer named BUR

  playbynumbers said:

i don't give a flying fuck about this either way, but actually thought this article was pretty convincing:

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...16/533narty.asp

lol what the fuck?

seriously dude?

  catsonearth said:

  Benedict Cumberbatch said:

i don't really understand why the voters got to decide on this in the first place. why not ask them if we should sacrafice jews? to ask them and they say 'no'. to then turn around and say actually thats illegal seems bizarre (obv that didnt happen though)

 

exactly. it shouldn't have even been allowed to go to a vote. anyone with half a brain can see the implications and see straight away that it's unconstitutional. you can't single out groups and deny them access to certain rights because you don't like something innate about them. it's as simple as that.

wait a minute. if the voters don't get to decide then who does? just because you don't like or agree with the conclusion they came to doesn't mean democracy itself is the problem. if the voters don't get a voice then its a dictatorship.

  fox said:

wait a minute. if the voters don't get to decide then who does? just because you don't like or agree with the conclusion they came to doesn't mean democracy itself is the problem. if the voters don't get a voice then its a dictatorship.

if people aren't allowed to vote on taking the rights away from a minority that doesn't mean it's a dictatorship that means it's the government protecting the rights of a minority.

in my strong opinion the population should never be allowed to vote on something that strips a minority group of their civil rights.

by using your line of logic the supreme court decision on roe Vs wade would be enforcing a 'dicatorship' because it forces states to legalize abortion

  chenGOD said:

I read the rest of that article that PBN posted, and I gotta say, big LOL. The author goes on and on about the kinship system, and all the obligations that it poses on a married couple and how wedding rings and ceremonies will never match the penalties and duties the kinship system imposes. Then he comes up with this beauty:

 

  Quote

Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage--much less three, as I have done--were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

 

So the kinship system worked so well that he married three times. LOL

Also hilarious because they argue for the "sanctity of marriage." Christianity became the official religion of England because the king wanted a divorce.

  Awepittance said:

  fox said:

wait a minute. if the voters don't get to decide then who does? just because you don't like or agree with the conclusion they came to doesn't mean democracy itself is the problem. if the voters don't get a voice then its a dictatorship.

 

if people aren't allowed to vote on taking the rights away from a minority that doesn't mean it's a dictatorship that means it's the government protecting the rights of a minority.

in my strong opinion the population should never be allowed to vote on something that strips a minority group of their civil rights.

 

by using your line of logic the supreme court decision on roe Vs wade would be enforcing a 'dicatorship' because it forces states to legalize abortion

allowed? who does the allowing? the constitution of the state of california says the people have the right to ammend their constitution. would you have that right taken away from them? and what learned elite will be deciding upon whom to shower "minority" status? am i a minority because i am a 31 year old male who owns a german shepherd? do i deserve "minority" status?

roe is irrelevant. the job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitutionality of laws. laws found to be unconstitutional are struck down. banning abortion was found to be unconstitutional, so such laws were struck down. that is not dictatorship. but to suggest that some things are too important to be voted upon by the people whose right it is to determine the constitution of their own government is to endorse a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.

hey i was raised 'church of england'. don't make me come across the park and hurt you

  chenGOD said:

  Quote

Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage--much less three, as I have done--were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

 

So the kinship system worked so well that he married three times. LOL

The entire conclusion is amazing:

"Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system--a system from which you have been spared. If gay men and women could see the price that humanity--particularly the women and children among us--will pay, simply in order that a gay person can say of someone she already loves with perfect competence, "Hey, meet the missus!"--no doubt they will think again. If not, we're about to see how well humanity will do without something as basic to our existence as gravity."

  fox said:

but to suggest that some things are too important to be voted upon by the people whose right it is to determine the constitution of their own government is to endorse a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.

i believe in more freedom, i don't believe 51% of the population should have a vote to take away a freedom or civil right of 49% of the population. You are endorsing tyranny of the majority which imo is as bad as this wrong characterization of a dictatorship you are using.

edit: there are no freedoms lost in allowing gay people to marry.

  yek said:

  catsonearth said:

complete and utter bullshit. as if you need any more proof that this country's supposed ideals are just a sham.

your country is ruled by a computer named WOPR

fix'd

This is the sort of thing that first comes to mind when I hear any politician talking a lot about "states rights".

  takeshi said:

This is the sort of thing that first comes to mind when I hear any politician talking a lot about "states rights".

which gay marriage?

  Benedict Cumberbatch said:

hey i was raised 'church of england'. don't make me come across the park and hurt you

:duel: