<p>I voted for Prop 8, and I'm happy it passed. Score one for the Republicans to counteract Obama's victory.</p>
<p>There are some things I don't get... Why does it matter for YOU whether people get gay marriages or not? As someone wise said - 'Against gay marriage? Well, then don't get one and shut the f up!'. I don't dislike or like gay people, actually I don't think being/not being gay should determine one's affection towards the person. Yes, I would never have a gay marriage/marriage with many women (polygamy), but if someone else thinks about doing it - it doesn't hurt me, it doesn't affect me, and as long as it stays that way - why the heck intervene? You like to watch TV at 8, someone prefers to do it at 7, you go and ban them?</p>
<p>I understand when people argue against gay rapists and stuff, and call this perverted... But when they say that it's characteristic of ALL gays that gets kinda disturbing... %%% is about same. So step over your fear of unknown, and let people be free. Or soon you will start saying that blacks can not get education as whites can, because blacks are not 'natural' or are 'inferior' or whatever.</p>
<p>Wow z7xfla, you sure showed him.</p>
<p>States rights. Prop 8 is neither unconstitutional, nor a violation of 'human rights'. Quit whining.</p>
<p>we'll see if the california supreme court shares your sentiment.</p>
<p>how isn't it a violation of human rights, iloveagoodbrew??
Humans have the RIGHT to love whomever they want/love in the first place...jesus. the ignorance in this country...</p>
<p>So is it better to have a few judges decide or to let the majority of millions of voters decide (not once, but twice)? Sounds like the difference between dictatorship and democracy to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So is it better to have a few judges decide or to let the majority of millions of voters decide (not once, but twice)?
[/quote]
In defense of the prospective courtcase defeat of proposition 8, it could potentially be a case of ethics similar to Loving v. Virginia, but it would be best if we muster opinions from legal gleanings, as the US, of course, is a *constitutional<a href="representative">/I</a> democracy. Perhaps, in abusing the doctrine of democracy, one is blinded to other core ideas like equality under the law and freedoms of the persons to pursue their agenda.</p>
<p>Now, while the Democrats' amici curiæ are indeed ethically grounded, the actual lead case filed does not argue on equality on the scale of LvsVA at all. It argues on due process of law (oh my, look, another doctrine that one might have overlooked) to determine whether Proposition 8 was in fact an attempted revision.</p>
<p>The mass effect is not the only fundamental at hand.</p>
<p>Edit: Should the Proposition succeed, there are other ideas one might want to check out. For example, the constitution must be consistent in that this insertion into the equal protection clause will have consequences, but more importantly, we shall in fact be setting a rather spectacular precedent of oppression, interpretation and courts' rights (ie Separation of Powers if the interpretations must be skewed to have this Prop put in even with homosexuals identified as entitled to heightened protection...).</p>
<p>
[quote]
States rights. Prop 8 is neither unconstitutional, nor a violation of 'human rights'. Quit whining.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Equal protection clause anyone?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I voted for Prop 8, and I'm happy it passed. Score one for the religious ultra-right to counteract Obama's victory.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There... fixed it for ya</p>
<p>mrego there is something known as tyranny of the mob maybe you've heard of it. with your mentality anti-miscegenation laws would still be in place and women still wouldn't have the right to vote.</p>
<p>That's the difference between Athenian direct democracy and constitutional representative democracy</p>
<p>I wouldn't worry too much about it. If history is any indication, homosexuals will soon have equal rights. </p>
<p>America's progression is a slow but steady evolution toward "a more perfect union" whereby every individual will have the right to experience life as they see fit for their own highest good. Many conservatives view this as the collapse of our society, but many also used the Bible to defend slavery. </p>
<p>From abolition to women's rights to civil rights to environmental justice, we are always a country moving forward toward "a more perfect union". It's just a matter of time.</p>
<p>Jeremy, it's not a law saying that people can't be gay or that they can't love. It's a law regarding the legal status. Granted, I don't think that "love" can only be man/woman, but I have to ask you Jeremy, who do you think you are to attack people in general over the votes of a few? Who are you to question my "nerve", when I had no say whatsoever in Amendment 2 Proposition 8? </p>
<p>Listen kid, if you want to be gay, be gay. I don't care! But leave me out of it. I don't care about your sexuality, and I don't care about California politics. If you don't like what happened with Amendment 2 Proposition 8 then perhaps NEXT TIME you'll be more active in the political scene. Because until you vote and are active in the p[olitical agenda, you really don't have much right to complain. </p>
<p>Think about this, Jeremy-
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.<br>
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.<br>
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.<br>
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." -- Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945</p>
<p>Kid? Thanks for the condescending tone.
anyways, I am trying to understand what you mean, and I can, however...it's just gone too far to be silent and let this pass unnoticed, you know? We (doesn't mean you, but others who want to) have got to be more proactiv about this or the country will not progress forward. And one last thing: The way you phrased it, it sounds like you may think being gay is a choice, when you said, "if you <em>want</em> to be gay. I never wanted to. Just like you never wanted to be straight, or whatever you are lol. It just IS. No choice. It simply is just there.</p>
<p>So what are you going to do about it now?</p>
<p>
You're welcome. Perhaps you would not be referred to as "kid" if you acted a more responsible age. Consider how condescending it sounds when you makes statements like "I cannot believe the nerve of this country" when it's not the country that voted on it but California.</p>
<p>But since you brought up the word "nerve", is that anything comparable to the nerve the homosexual community had when it invaded churches (several of which took no position on Amendment 2 Proposition 8) and *** they assaulted church members including the elderly?*** And since that is over a sexual issue, shouldn't that be considered sexual assault? And you are talking about "nerve"?</p>
<p>We discussed the probability of that problem arising with our church, and several of us members made it clear where we stand- they can be gay if they like, we don't care. What they do in their bedroom is their business, just don't get us involved. But if they come into our church and start assaulting anyone, they'll be eating asphalt PDQ. We expect, we demand, the homosexual community respect us as we have respected them. You don't get respect by physically trespassing and assaulting people. FYI doing that here makes several felonies- first there's the trespass with intent to commit a crime thereon, which is first degree/criminal trespass (F4), assaulting the elderly (F5), committing a violent crime based on constitutionally protected activities (F3 & then it become a federal hate crime), and yes possibly sexual assault (undefined felony) since the assault is over sexual issues/intent. Sounds like the homosexual community looks forward to a minimum of 12 years in a 8'x12' concrete room with a 6'6" gay black gangsta named Bubba. </p>
<p>Here, have a bar of soap.</p>
<p> [quote=Jeremybeach] anyways, I am trying to understand what you mean, and I can, however...
What I mean is it would be appreciated if you could refrain from involving those that aren'y involved. AKA 49 states that have nothing to do with what laws California passes. Sure, nearly all (44, IIRC) have similar laws. Well, fight them in the courtroom, not the back alley (and not in church).</p>
<p>
That is why you should be a political activist. Nothing wrong, in fact it's VERY American and completely legal until you decide to make it illegal.</p>
<p>
WE, and yes that includes you, MUST be pro-active for the political interests that we have, no matter what they are or how different they are.</p>
<p>
Actually, it's up to you to be gay. It really is. Because you decide to advertise it, you decide to tell others, you make the final decision. If someone sees you holding your boyfriend's hand and they comment on it, I gotta ask- what makes it any of their business? Do they also change your diaper? If not then it's none of their business, period.</p>
<p>On the other hand, when you want a license, you have to go to the state. You have to meet state regulations. It's not something you can just walk in and get "just because". When you start getting licenses, you're now playing in the state's ball park. Their ball park, their rules. Kinda like you, really. If you go to an amusement park and want to ride the go karts, usually you have a height restriction to pass, right? Right. If you're too short you don't ride. So what are you going to do? Vandalize the park because of that rule? Beat up the other customers at the park? Why not go to a different park instead? </p>
<p>Now compare that to the churches. Don't go to those churches. They subsist off of tithes paid, so ultimately if you don't pay tithes it hurts them, right? Just leave them alone. </p>
<p>As for the state, crap happens Jeremy. What's next? Saying it's ok for someone totally blind to drive a commercial truck? What about child molesters? Maybe we should let them drive school buses. What do you think we should do next?</p>
<p>Why do you need a license to be gay? Just go be gay to your hearts content and enjoy life. Lots of gays do that. And lots of heterosexuals do it as well- live together, enjoy life, enjoy sex, and they don't have licenses to do it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It appears, though I could be wrong, that you are setting up a strawman representing all gay people as some "homosexual community" with a coherent viewpoint or mode of action, whereafter you frame your language in an "Us vs. Them" fashion. This is the </p>
<p>But since you brought up the word "nerve", is that anything comparable to the nerve the homosexual community had when it invaded churches (several of which took no position on Amendment 2 Proposition 8) and they assaulted church members including the elderly? And since that is over a sexual issue, shouldn't that be considered sexual assault? And you are talking about "nerve"?</p>
<p>We discussed the probability of that problem arising with our church, and several of us members made it clear where we stand- they can be gay if they like, we don't care. What they do in their bedroom is their business, just don't get us involved. But if they come into our church and start assaulting anyone, they'll be eating asphalt PDQ. We expect, we demand, the homosexual community respect us as we have respected them. You don't get respect by physically trespassing and assaulting people.
FYI doing that here makes several felonies- first there's the trespass with intent to commit a crime thereon, which is first degree/criminal trespass (F4), assaulting the elderly (F5), committing a violent crime based on constitutionally protected activities (F3 & then it become a federal hate crime), and yes possibly sexual assault (undefined felony) since the assault is over sexual issues/intent. Sounds like the homosexual community looks forward to a minimum of 12 years in a 8'x12' concrete room with a 6'6" gay black gangsta named Bubba.
[/quote]
While I don't think the original post was well-thought-out, it seemed to be a rant. A rant is not necessarily objective and there was no false pretense of such objectivity in this case. Such a negative criticism of such a rant isn't going to do much.
Also, I don't know what this "homosexual community" really is. If you are labelling all homosexual persons as part of this violent "homosexual community" then you should note that it does not exist. The many protests thus far have been predominantly peaceful, and many gay rights supporters and attackers have expressed regret that the contemptible actions have indeed occurred.</p>
<p>Please do not characterize the GLBTQ+Allies events in "Us vs. Them" language; it only serves to delineate one's own separations and suppose alliances between disparate persons simply because they disagree with you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you need a license to be gay? Just go be gay to your hearts content and enjoy life. Lots of gays do that. And lots of heterosexuals do it as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This sentence almost confirms that you have perhaps subconsciously set up a strawman to attack. There has been no mention so far of any need "for a license to be gay." Please review your post. Note that the state (U.S.) explicitly treats homosexuals as inferior citizens (da/dt). Further, cultural acceptance of homophobia is much higher than cultural acceptance of other generally unreasonable discriminations like racism (eg Boyscouts of America, Roman Catholic Church). Making explicit allowances (such as special protection) for homosexuals in the constitution is anticipated to relieve the inefficiencies fermented by such culturally accepted generally unreasonable discriminations.
[quote]
On the other hand, when you want a license, you have to go to the state. You have to meet state regulations.
[/quote]
I await your response. If I have mischaracterized your statements, please explain. One of the main arguments floating around is a lack of justification for a particular license requirement.</p>
<p>I am using the generalizations in hopes of showing Jeremy how unfair it is.</p>
<p>Alright :)</p>