Prop 8?

@Lightwizard,

Hi Light, Nice to see you here. However, you have identified the biggest problem with some people who do not understand the definition of words. Without understanding what words mean, it's useless to try to have an discussion with people who refuse to communicate on equal word meanings. They even refuse to look it up in the dictionary; hopeless.

0 Replies

Hawkeye - You've posted the ALCU thing and you don't even understand what he wrote. It seems you like to eat your words, but first you like to roast yourself along with them.

As for why people think that other rulings on the homosexual community will lead to gays being able to marry, it's a matter of the least common denominator.

You may not see the connection of the rulings, but your argument against gays marrying is largely the same argument being used in courts to try and criminalize gay behavior in general. So when the court rules in the favor of gays it continues to invalidate the same-old-argument and set a legal precedent. As much as you'd like to deny this, you cannot.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Debra seem to be off in some universe of her very own and if you dare to point this out to her you get call a bigot or a liar or whatever.

I belong to the real life "universe" where many courts in our land--including the United States Supreme Court--have enforced the Constitution and required States to cease their oppression of people based on their sexual orientation. You're the one who has created a fictitious universe in your ill-informed mind where majoritarian oppression is the law of the land.

Neither you nor hawkeye10 comprehend the FACT that the United States is a constitutional republic wherein our fundamental law secures liberty and protects individuals and minorities from majoritarian oppression. You refuse to acknowledge the significance of the due process and equal protection clauses of our state and federal constitutions. Under the due process clause, individual liberty interests are constitutionally secured against unreasonable state infringements. Under the equal protection clause, all persons similarly situated must be treated the same by the government.

You fail to grasp the rationale of the Lawrence case that supports the holding. The Court gave its REASONS for finding that the State may not constitutionally disparage the liberty interests of homosexual persons through the operation of its laws. Take off your blindfold and read:

Quote:

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

“ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right.

The Court further explained its rationale as follows:

Quote:

the fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice

Anything you say that contradicts the above is FALSE.

0 Replies

Proposition 8

Attorney General's Press Release:
http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1642&#attachments

Attorney General's Brief:
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1642_prop_8_brief.pdf

0 Replies

The Attorney General quoted this language from West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943) (also quoted in In re Marriage Cases), concerning the Bill of Rights (which is the federal analogue to CA's Declaration of Rights):

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Brief at 95.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Debra first you select some narrow Supreme Court rulings placing the very maximum possible spin on them and after that you run them through some crazy logic system of your very own to expand the meaning into the outer limit of reality.

In effect you are trying to turn the constitution and it amendments into some pro-gay right LSD dream of your very own.

And when people are nice enough to point out how high you are tripping and try to talk you down you begin name calling.

0 Replies

Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/gay-marriage-an.html

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

A majority is, after all, made up of a collection of minorities -- even within a race there is diversity that contain minorities of gays, independent voters, disabled, senior citizens, college educated and on and on. The idea of a collective majority attempting to force their interpretation of freedom and liberty on others, specifically a minority faction of any society, is a selfishness that is without precedent. There's enough selfishness displayed in this forum to make one believe we are living in Victorian England.

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
- Oscar Wilde

1 Reply

Another recent Andrew Sullivan viewpoint:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-prop-8-lega.html

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

A majority is, after all, made up of a collection of minorities -- even within a race there is diversity that contain minorities of gays, independent voters, disabled, senior citizens, college educated and on and on. The idea of a collective majority attempting to force their interpretation of freedom and liberty on others, specifically a minority faction of any society, is a selfishness that is without precedent. There's enough selfishness displayed in this forum to make one believe we are living in Victorian England.

no you moron, it is a question of where does the collectives best interests lie. Wanting to do what is best for the many over the desires of the few is not selfishness, it is prudence.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Reads like communism or facism to me -- little Hitler. The tyranny of the mob. I can see you are miles away from objectivity and you are entirely wrong. Or, what Huxley stated below.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

(Or, perhaps you are Borg).

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

(Or, perhaps you are Borg).

no, one who realizes that the best interests of the one is almost completely tied to the best interests of the many. Human survival and advancement comes from the collective effort, individual effort is so tiny that it is useless unless it is tied to many other individual efforts pulling in the same direction. Individuals should be allowed max freedom to be themselves and to pursue what they want, but when these desires come up against the best interests of the collective the collective must win the struggle. There are always boundaries, individuals must know the boundaries, must be taught to obey the boundaries, and when they refuse they must be compelled to obey the boundaries.

openly gay life is so unusual in history that we don't know what the effects on the collective are. we should find out before we sign on to allowing gays what they want. If it is not a problem then they should be allowed the freedom to practice their gay life in the open, if it is a problem then gay behaviour must be oppressed and individuals who refuse to obey the collective wisdom and will must be compelled and punished.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You've failed to define what the problem is -- other than too many abide by the religious oligarchy in this country. Gay marriage would not affect any other minority or the collection of minorities we refer to as "the majority," more like the mobocracy.

In case anyone missed it, "Prop 8 The Musical:"

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1864797,00.html

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

please attempt to follow along: we don't know if there is a problem. We do know however that almost all of our ancestors decided that allowing individuals to be openly gay would be a problem and they thus did not allow it. There are questions about what happens to gender identity formation in kid brought up in gay homes. It is known that gays are very transitory in their relationships, thus seeing after the best interest of the kids in these continually broken homes will definitely be a hardship for the society. We do know that costs of running the society will go up if we continue the current level of financial support for married couples, as we will add it is estimated 3% to the marriage number. The number will be much higher if being gay becomes no longer a negative identity, as many will claim to be married gays who are not in fact gay in order to take the marriage benefit that society offers, so the costs could become significant. We risk weakening the family further than we already have by expanding the definition of family so far that the term "family" become almost meaningless. Considering that the society is built around the family this weakening of the family will impose additional weakness on this society, a society that is already weak form over two generations of neglect while the idiots pursued individual freedom at the expense of all else.

we need facts and answers before we grant gays what they want. Once granted the privileges will be very difficult to take away. Now is the time to use wisdom and intelligence, now before action is taken.

1 Reply

The interest of the collective is not threatened by gay marriage. There isn't a problem, and while you say we don't know the effect, we in fact do know because gays have been around for all of human history and they have NEVER threatened the collective.

In terms of history and threats to the collective, religions like Christianity and Islam have put us in more jeopardy. They can enjoy their rights because we should not judge an entire group by the choices of the few. You come here and expect gays to prove something to you, but you don't matter. You're not an authority. Beyond that, you ask for them to earn things you never had to earn.

I'll put this simply for you: You're argument is sunk.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Oh, so you know that myriad of hetero divorces isn't effecting the "family," again with yourown myopic definition from the Idiot's Dictionary, or its effect on the community including the churches. You know that gays are very transitory in their relationships, much like the majority of single heterosexuals who outnumber them? Where's your proof.

The main entry from Merriam Webster is:

1: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : household.
In other words, a family can consist of two married people, their relatives and friends.

When MW gets down to family consisting of two parents raising their children (5a), there has to be an arbitrary rider as to the sex of the two parents, and that comes out of religion.

Who is the "we" who don't know there if there will be problem. You're still writing as if you are slipping back into the past and are unwilling to shake it off, a stagnation of mind, body and spirit.

I'm willing to guess the "who" is your own little commune, thus stating that the meaning of family may become meaningless -- better check all the definitions of the word. You're already picking and choosing what it means.

It makes me wonder what human contact you have, or are you stuck on the Internet blogs and forums, letting them make up your mind for you?

Society is built around communities consisting of several different kinds of families. The congregation of a church is, by definition, a family.

Your semantics are constricted by the narrowness of mind typical of those against gay marriage -- reasons expressing the problems stuck in religious morays going back through history. It's time to get out of the rut -- or climb aboard a time machine and go back to the era you consider wonderfully perfect. I'd set it for you -- the Spanish Inquisition.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

the collective has the power to impose its will upon individuals and upon minorities, your argument that suppressing homosexuality and oppression homosexuals is wrong can be argued and might carry the day, but then again it might not. The majority can and should do what is right for the many over what is fair for the few. Life is not fair, a minority group being oppressed is thus not a deal breaker. Whether the majoity will make a stand for itself is unknown. Whether open homosexuality is the threat to the collective is unknown. But we shall see.

You argue your case, I'll argue mine, and we will see who wins where it counts...in the court of public opinion.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

the collective has the power to impose its will upon individuals and upon minorities, your argument that suppressing homosexuality and oppression homosexuals is wrong can be argued and might carry the day, but then again it might not. The majority can and should do what is right for the many over what is fair for the few. Life is not fair, a minority group being oppressed is thus not a deal breaker. Whether the majoity will make a stand for itself is unknown. Whether open homosexuality is the threat to the collective is unknown. But we shall see.

You argue your case, I'll argue mine, and we will see who wins where it counts...in the court of public opinion.

You have not established banning gays from marriage is what is right for anyone.

Homosexuality is not a threat. Let us not forget that gays are being married in the US already, living openly in the USA, and neither are harming you or preventing you from living as you please.

Life is not fair, yes. You are using it as an excuse to set the bar low. You're a hypocrite and a coward.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

The "court of public opinion" is on the cusp and I see no reason why, in the next year or two, it won't sway to the other side. If one goes by demographics, say poll just those who live in large cities where most gay communities are in or exist in the suburbs of those cities, I'm willing to state that it is already over the cusp and by a good margin.

http://people-press.org/report/273/less-opposition-to-gay-marriage-adoption-and-military-service

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know