Prop 8?

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

So gays are not doctors or lawyers or trade people or small busines owners of all typles!!!!!!!!!

Did no know that they was so worthless thank for telling me this as it came as somewhat of a surprise.

OMG you got me! Oh wait, my point remains.

1) If people have problems with their gay Doctor, they can find a new straight Doctor. Well, that is to say IF they can find a new doctor in CA to fit them in. But I suppose it's their prerogative. Beyond that, I think that if a Doctor is openly gay their patients are probably okay with that; they would have found someone else if they weren't.

2) Gay small business probably don't get much support from the people that voted for prop8, so saying that the prop8 supporters could boycott their businesses and have any real effect is laughable. The only reason I chose the fashion/style industry in my example is because it is one that I do imagine that many prop8 supporters do represent purchasing power.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

But the court is playing with nuclear weapons if it tries to claim that they have the power to nullify majority rights.

The majority's rights are not being nullified because the majority never had the right to oppress a disfavored minority. Can't nullify something they never had. Nevermind that the "majority" is an ambiguous term that can be defined in any number of ways. The "majority" is not a class at all, how could it be?

Sure the popular opinion has power and a role in society, but it is not an authority. It was not popular to integrate schools or grant women voting rights. You're going to have to swallow that pill. You may not like the outcome because of your beliefs, but to say that it isn't cohesive or congruent with the spirit of the law is ignorant.

Gays will marry one day, and the sky will not fall. You will, as you are now, remain uneffected by their actions or beliefs.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

There's a large hardware chain in Orange County that is owned by a gay couple who have been together what seems like forever. Some are privy who used to patronize their first store in the 60's in Laguna Niguel, a very upscale coastal development which is predominantly right wing. There are many gay businesses owned business which have been huge companies, like Hoffman LaRoche. Mr. Hoffman was one of the wealthiest gay men in the world and the time. Oh, poor naive and truly laughable, poorly disguised bigots. If you only know. It would probably scare you to death that you can't get through life without unknowingly patronizing many gay businesses, buying services and products that are usually very high quality. If you're kids are going to see DreamWorks or Disney animation or family films, you're lining the pockets of a lot of prominent gays (any doubt now why ABC is now leading the pack even over Showtime and HBO as a gay friendly network). Bravo! Well, besides Bravo!

I feel sorry during the holiday season that there are still such poor deluded fools who still believe gays are second-class citizens. They often aren't just deluded -- they're Dick Cheney evil.
They want us all to believe they are world wise and savvy, but in that respect, about as much as a goat.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Correct -- the right to vote is the only influence we have directly on the government. One can write your Senator or Congressman, but don't try that with Senator Feinstein, for instance, 'cause if it's to convince her to vote against any gay legislation, it will fall on deaf ears and I doubt you'd even get a reply.

Popular opinion, indeed. We'd be out of Iraq if it had any influence at all. The Shrub has stated he didn't run for President to become popular (the majority or the collective, or whatever label one wants to put on it). Well, he certainly succeeded.

The only atomic bomb going off is going to be in their brains.

You do have a technical knockout, Diest -- but they're laying, reeling on the floor and don't know when to stay down before they loose their teeth.

0 Replies

@Copper Seth,

Copper Seth wrote:

I'd like you to address my previous post, Debra.

I've been trying to address your previous post as time permits. I was able to discern that you did not understand that two clauses of the constitution apply to the issue of marriage: the due process clause and the equal protection clause. Here's a recap:

The due process (DP) clause secures life, liberty, and property against unreasonable government denials or disparagements. The equal protection (EP) clause guarantees that persons similarly situtated will be treated the same by the government.

The right to marry is a fundamental liberty interest secured by the DP clause. Under the DP clause, whenever the state denies or disparages a fundamental right, then the court will review the challenged state action using strict scrutiny. That means that the denial or deprivation must be NECESSARY (narrowly tailored) to serve a COMPELLING state interest.

The DP and EP clauses overlap in the EP analysis when the court determines the standard of review. If state discrimination between similarly situated persons burdens a fundamental right AND/OR targets a suspect class, then the court will review the challenged state action using strict scrutiny.

Thus, if you thoroughly review the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Marriage Cases, you will see that the Court found the state marriage ban with respect to same sex couples was unconstitutional because:

1) the ban denied homosexual individuals and same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry (a constitutionally secured liberty interest) in violation of the DP Clause;

2) the ban discriminated against a suspect class of persons in violation of the EP Clause; and

3) state discrimination against homosexuals and same sex couples burdened a fundamental right in violation of the EP Clause.

Here is a relevant clip from the case at Page 48-49:

Quote:

Plaintiffs contend that by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, California’s marriage statutes violate a number of provisions of the California Constitution.28 In particular, plaintiffs contend that the challenged statutes violate a same-sex couple’s fundamental “right to marry” as guaranteed by the privacy, free speech, and due process clauses of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 1, 2, 7), and additionally violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 7).29 Because the question whether the challenged aspect of the marriage statutes violates or impinges upon the fundamental right to marry may be determinative in deciding the appropriate standard of review to be applied in evaluating plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge, we first address the question whether the challenged statutes independently infringe a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the California Constitution.

Understanding the above is essential to the discussion.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

It's the fallacy of the fundamentalist Christians who are claiming their Constitution rights are being taken away by allowing homosexuals to marry. They need to be reminded:

The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and
362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean
that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
~ Lynn Lavner

0 Replies

Don't forget shellfish...

T
K
Oh Shellfish, you-gonna-git-it!!!

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Definitely it would be fair put a proposition on the ballot not to allow anyone who eats shellfish to marry -- now gays who eat shellfish would be further punished by a proposition to take away their subscriptions to The Advocate and ban watching the LOGO channel.

Second offense -- we'll have everybody stoned. Then, deny them the right to eat huge portions of food.

Since pettiness seems to have no bounds.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

I'd rather be black than gay because when you're black you don't have to tell your mother.
~ Charles Pierce

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Too bad the gay right movement shut off treatment and research concerning
treatment of this sexual disorder.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Too bad the gay right movement shut off treatment and research concerning
treatment of this sexual disorder.

Why would people seek treatment for something that isn't a disorder?

T
K
O

3 Replies

@Diest TKO,

That is the PC position that the gay right movement had force everyone to assume even gays who would wish such treatments are being block.

Taking away the freedoms of fellow gays seem not to be a problem at all to the gay community.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I'm sure most gays would love to have the political power you ascribe to them.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

That is the PC position that the gay right movement had force everyone to assume even gays who would wish such treatments are being block.

Taking away the freedoms of fellow gays seem not to be a problem at all to the gay community.

It's not about political correctness, it's about scientific correctness. That's the point. It had been wrongly assumed to be a disorder.

Why does a someone need to seek treatment for being gay? It's not a disorder. The APA knows better than you, and despite your cute little conspiri-cons, it was reasoned and fought to that conclusion.

You only embarrass yourself by showing how little you understand about homosexuality.

Here is my bet, If a homosexual was given the choice between a "cure" for homosexuality and the end of homosexual oppression, they'd pick the end of oppression. You see, after the time I've spent with my friends, it's obvious that the primary reason that they'd consider a "cure" is for the absence of the social stigma promoted by people like you. The primary struggle of being gay is not being gay itself, it's the social atmosphere created by goons like you.

You can try and related being gay to being blind or deaf and seeking treatment, but it just doesn't match up.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

TKO you know it would be highly amusing if the gay right movement turn out to be correct and it was completely biological driven condition that could be detected in the womb by a simple test.

Now all those 10s of millions of evil redneck/bigots knowing that they could only afford to raise one or two children in their lifetime would then decide in mass to exercise their right to abortions base on the test results.

The gay community would go crazy however the same PC crowd that support gays rights also just as strongly support abortion rights.

Yes, there would be attempts to ban the tests kits to start with and all this could be an interesting plot for a book do you not think TKO?

What constitution rights do you think Debra would end up supporting of the two?

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Sorry I know and had posted on the very unscientific reasons why the APA de-listed homosexuality as a disorder in the 70s. Starting with two ruin yearly meetings cause by very uncivil protests and help out by a then in the closest incoming APA president.

Yes it is sad when people know the facts concerning the so call science in back of the de-listing for you TKO is it not.

Oh there was a force vote of the APA memberships trying to reverse this so call scientific de-listing that you did win by a 60/40 margin if memory serve me correctly, after all who would wish to have their yearly get together ruin year after year.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

What is already interesting is that the gay rights groups, who claim that homosexuality is natural and biologic, have embraced the transgender rights groups, who claim that biology got it wrong. For me this indicates that the rational argument for why homosexuality must be accepted is wall paper. The behaviour is "I want what I want and you can't tell me no!". I long ago learned that with women one should always follow what they do over what they say, and I suspect that the same rules applies to gays.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

It nice that you feel so free to speak for 10 of millions of your fellow citizens who only thing in commen is a medical disorder.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

TKO you know it would be highly amusing if the gay right movement turn out to be correct and it was completely biological driven condition that could be detected in the womb by a simple test.

Your recent and frequent use of the word "amusing" raises questions about your vocabulary.

Perhaps science will take us there. Look at the test: Boy, girl, blond, brunette, skinny, fat, straight, gay, blue eyes, green eyes, athletic, autistic, retarded, sociopathic... etc.

BillRM wrote:

Now all those 10s of millions of evil redneck/bigots knowing that they could only afford to raise one or two children in their lifetime would then decide in mass to exercise their right to abortions base on the test results.

I'm not going to police the reasons that someone choses to have an abortion because I'm not going to ask. They owe me, nor you an explanation. It's their privacy.

If they want to decide in mass to abort their gay unborn that's their right, they just have to understand that the line is drawn when they try to demand that others that think differently than them must also follow suit.

BillRM wrote:

The gay community would go crazy however the same PC crowd that support gays rights also just as strongly support abortion rights.

Being pro-choice means being able to choose to abort, it also means being able to choose to keep a child. What you describe is not about the right to choose, but instead the mandate to abort based on a genetic trait.

People can make that choice for themselves, but not others. It doesn't make it a good choice, but theirs all the same.

BillRM wrote:

Yes, there would be attempts to ban the tests kits to start with and all this could be an interesting plot for a book do you not think TKO?

Yes right from the pages of Christopher Buckley I would imagine. He'd make it a good read. In the end I imagine the protagonist, who I'll assume is somehow caught between the diametrically opposed forces (more concerned with winning than truth), comes to find some large social platform where she (I imagine a female) would deliver quite articulately how these issues are over politicized.

It would make a good book. It would not however be one that I imagine would play out to your advantage.

BillRM wrote:

What constitution rights do you think Debra would end up supporting of the two?

What's the purpose in speculating? As is, even if the scenario you mention was to come up, the two would not be at odds. The only conflict would be with the individual (where it belongs) not the public.

You're just excited by the notion of liberals quarreling with each other. ou forget that the Dems are the big tent party already, they are more accustomed to compromising with contrary views etc. That big-tent-ness of the Dems is kind of what appeals the most to me. They don't have to be right all the time, they just have to be engaging everyone. A model of government where aren't required to all conform but coexist is one I can participate in--even if it's imperfect.

You also forget the conflict your question would create in the conservative circles. Those who hate gays, but hate abortion. How would the anti-intellectuals on the right rationalize this? Not as good of a book in my opinion. More like a comic strip.

By the way, good job. You've managed to drive the dialog aways from gays and marriage and to gays and abortion. Good grief.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Too bad the gay right movement shut off treatment and research concerning
treatment of this sexual disorder.

Why would people seek treatment for something that isn't a disorder?

T
K
O

Perhaps BillRM ought to seek treatment for his mental disorders called HOMOPHOBIA and Pathological BIGOTRY?

Is Bigotry a Mental Illness?

Quote:

Those who advocate making pathological bigotry a formal psychiatric diagnosis argue: Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia, and other forms of irrational hatred. Many patients holding these views are troubled and sometimes even disabled by them. Some individuals with pathological bigotry are frankly delusional, perceive themselves as "under attack," and become overtly dangerous to themselves or others....

Those who oppose medicalizing these forms of bigotry argue: It is a mistake to pathologize a widespread form of human stupidity....

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/55226

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know