Prop 8 and the Sundane Film Fest.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by GoS

I think that this is a stupid argument. I think that this is one of those things that, like abortion, isn't the governments business. The people can choose what they want, what they think is right and live their lives accordingly. The state is not saying that as of now you have to become gay, or even accept them, but that they can get married. Because otherwise, no matter how you defend it, rights are denied, and thus discrimination has occurred. It is if you do not approve of gays being able to marry, than you don't have to endorse it.

This is why I identify as a Federalist. I think abortion and gay marriage are state issues, not federal issues. I think CA did it right; they weighed the issue and decided for themselves what they wanted without government doing it for them. If NV does the same thing and passes gay marriage, they also did the right thing. It's democracy in action!

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by GoS

How long did it take? How many other countries have had homogeneous presidents for this long? And if you haven't noticed, it kinda is. Race is an issue for many people.

Wake up and smell the ashes, AJ, we are hardy the ones burning! The majority of seats this year that were up for re-election were red, and yet the D's increased their majority handily. Yours is the party with no head, unifying figure and unpopular positions (and many of the wrong answers) that got it's butt whipped in 3 out of 3 categories. This is hysterical to hear you say that we are the ones burning. Just remember, admission is the first step to recovery.

Whereever conservatism was on the ballot, it did not lose. The fact of the matter is that I am not running and crying to the courts because my side lost and am asking for judges to fix it for me. The people spoke and I respect it. Apparently, your side doesn't respect democratic voting. That's my point. I'm not whining about the results. You're right, the Republican party had no head this election and Obama was effective. However, I'm not asking the state supreme courts to undo the results and force it's will on the people. I respect democracy, I can't say the same for those who opposed prop 8.

[strandinthewind]

What the lying conservatives out there do not say is that with marriage comes rights that people cannot obtain without marriage. The govt. is giving rights to people based on a religious idea, which is against the US Const. and the states' constitutions. Thus, until you take marriage out of the law, which will never happen, then you must extend the same chance for the same rights to everyone.

Moreover, the lying conservatives play a shell game with statements like "civil unions" are the better way to go. In reality, every state const. amendment I can think of on this issue prohibited not only gay "marriage" but also gay civil unions. So, they are for prohibiting civil unions as well.

For example, the recently passed Fla. Amendment states:

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Finally, the haters just can't stand not having the governments fully support their, and only their, religion. Pathetic if you ask me.

Interestingly, if they would just change the word marriage in all the laws to civil unions, would this shut up the lying conservatives. I suggest it would not.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

None of what you said above was true. We did abolish slavery and were the second nation to do so, we were one of the first to allow women voting and we just elected a black president. You just insulted the country by calling it bigoted.

Are you serious with this?

To the best of your knowledge, slavery was abolished, blacks were allowed to vote, and schools were de-segregated without protestation from people in this country? Everything went smoothly with that and the government didn't have to step in at all?

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Why not be for civil unions?

Unlike marriage, civil unions are not recognized equally in every state. A civil union in one state can be completely void in another.

Additionally, there is a total of approximately 1,400 state & federal benefits for married couples as opposed to "unionized" couples.

Simply put, civil unions are not equal to marriage.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

But then again, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, because I'm a registered republican, that allows you to be bigoted and project all sorts of opinions and hatred on me. You are just being intolerant because you cannot tolerate anyone having a different opinion. I don't want to courts sanctioning any relationship.

You're making some huge assumptions about me. I have friends and family members who are Republican and I'm very open to hearing opinions that differ from my own. However, bigotry is inexcusable in my eyes. And I have not yet heard one single valid reason to oppose gay marriage, that wasn't rooted in bigotry.

[GoS]

Hey AJ, can I give you a piece of advice? Don't argue with a moderator.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

To the best of your knowledge, slavery was abolished, blacks were allowed to vote, and schools were de-segregated without protestation? Everything went smoothly with that and the government didn't have to step in at all?

Not to mention that without the influence of the Supreme Court, which held the laws UnConstitutional in the first place, the 1964 Civil Rights Acts likely would not have happened.

Moreover, Loving v. Virginia was the Supreme Court, not the legislature or Congress, declaring, over vociferous religious objection and the vast majority of the popular opinoon, that it was okay for blacks and whites to marry. Alabama got around to taking that void law off of its books in like 2000, just in case the Court changed its mind.

This is why I think black people who voted against Prop. 8 should be teleported to prior to 1964 so they can see what it is like to sit in the back of the bus, drink from a sep. water fountain, go to a "sep. but equal" schools, etc. -- all based on the very religion they used to justify now voting for Prop. 8

Again, the lang. in Loving:

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Sounds familiar doesn't it.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Unlike marriage, civil unions are not recognized equally in every state. A civil union in one state can be completely void in another.

Additionally, there is a total of approximately 1,400 state & federal benefits for married couples as opposed to "unionized" couples.

Simply put, civil unions are not equal to marriage.

And, of the Federal government would pass a law that said that civil unions have all the rights and benefits as traditional marriage, I'd be as happy as a pig in shiitte because that way the haters get to keep their precious marriage that the vast majority of them laugh in the face of the religious aspect of everyday

. . . that wasn't rooted in bigotry. [/QUOTE]

Which equals organized religion in this, and, frankly, most areas where rights are concerned. Sad, very true.

_________________________________

Back to the topic at hand -- I am all for in this instance refusing to shop or do business with a Morman establishment that supported the hate. I mean that "church" used so many lies to scare people into voting for Prop. 8 that I think they could be sued.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Not to mention that without the influence of the Supreme Court, which held the laws UnConstitutional in the first place, the 1964 Civil Rights Acts likely would not have happened.

Moreover, Loving v. Virginia was the Supreme Court, not the legislature or Congress, declaring, over vociferous religious objection and the vast majority of the popular opinoon, that it was okay for blacks and whites to marry. Alabama got around to taking that void law off of its books in like 2000, just in case the Court changed its mind.

This is why I think black people who voted against Prop. 8 should be teleported to prior to 1964 so they can see what it is like to sit in the back of the bus, drink from a sep. water fountain, go to a "sep. but equal" schools, etc. -- all based on the very religion they used to justify now voting for Prop. 8

Again, the lang. in Loving:



Sounds familiar doesn't it.





And, of the Federal government would pass a law that said that civil unions have all the rights and benefits as traditional marriage, I'd be as happy as a pig in shiitte because that way the haters get to keep their precious marriage that the vast majority of them laugh in the face of the religious aspect of everyday

. . . that wasn't rooted in bigotry.

Which equals organized religion in this, and, frankly, most areas where rights are concerned. Sad, very true.

_________________________________

Back to the topic at hand -- I am all for in this instance refusing to shop or do business with a Morman establishment that supported the hate. I mean that "church" used so many lies to scare people into voting for Prop. 8 that I think they could be sued.[/QUOTE]

Again, you lost in a fair and democratic election and your answer is to say it wasn't fair and run to the courts. This is getting funnier by the minute. Citing a bunch of history from five decades ago doesn't change it. Go file the lawsuit yourself and claim unfairness.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by GoS

Hey AJ, can I give you a piece of advice? Don't argue with a moderator.

I know you were teasing, but I'd like to take this opportunity to say something in the hopes of avoiding the misunderstandings and mistaken assumptions of the past from happening again....

I promise AJ, and everyone else, that any debate that I actively take part in as a fellow Ledgie, and any difference of opinions that may arise from those discussions, has no bearing on what I do as a moderator.

Now, with that self-indulgence out of the way, let's get back to our lighthearted discussion!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

. . . Now, with that self-indulgence out of the way, let's get back to our lighthearted discussion!

I think you're a tw*t

Also, as you noted earlier, Thomas Jefferson stated:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that, though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

Many other statements from the Founding Fathers support this notion and can be found in the Federalist Papers (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/) and related documents - all of which show that freedom from religious tyranny is why this country was founded. So, the argument that the democratic process can be used to give rights to some but not others based solely on a relligious ideal is a Federalist notion is assinine and completely unsupported by the intent of the Founding Fathers as expressed in their own words.

Moreover, the 14th Amendment's language that:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

solidifies this notion. Remember, the majority wanted slaves and espoused religious reasons for keeping them as not even whole people under the original Constitution.

Yet, people lie and ignore these ideals based, yet again, solely on religious ideas. Again, I have yet to hear ONE non religious reasons for excluding gay people from getting the benefits automatically given straight people in their marriages.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think you're a tw*t

I think that's the one thing I haven't been called yet!

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Are you serious with this?

To the best of your knowledge, slavery was abolished, blacks were allowed to vote, and schools were de-segregated without protestation from people in this country? Everything went smoothly with that and the government didn't have to step in at all?



Unlike marriage, civil unions are not recognized equally in every state. A civil union in one state can be completely void in another.

Additionally, there is a total of approximately 1,400 state & federal benefits for married couples as opposed to "unionized" couples.

Simply put, civil unions are not equal to marriage.



You're making some huge assumptions about me. I have friends and family members who are Republican and I'm very open to hearing opinions that differ from my own. However, bigotry is inexcusable in my eyes. And I have not yet heard one single valid reason to oppose gay marriage, that wasn't rooted in bigotry.

Of course there was resistance. You'd get resistance to the civil rights bill now. It speaks volumes that you have to reach back 50 years to come up with your argument.

Secondly, what you cited about 1400 benefits not being available to civil unionized couples is a flat out lie. I dare you to cite them all.

There are several arguments agains gay marriage that do not involve bigotry. There is the slippery slope argument of where does it stop: polygamy, sibling marriage, etc. Here's a second one, you can turn that argument on its head. Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my brother or sister? If it is just about conferring rights, there would be no reason to object to it. Seriously, if you are for gay marriage, then why can't you marry your siblings, your roommate, anyone at all that you don't have a romantic link with? Most gay marriage proponents would deny rights to these people. How about Larry and Balki, why shouldn't they marry? They are not romantically involved with one another, but obviously they have a stake in one anothers lives?

Perhaps if you listened more, you might hear more valid arguments. Most of what I've seen here is that people who are for gay marriage create red herrings by presenting arguments about "who" the other side is and making cartoons out of them, more than analyzing or listening to the arguments. Hell, even Obama doesn't support gay marriage. He said so at Saddleback.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think you're a tw*t

Also, as you noted earlier, Thomas Jefferson stated:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that, though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

Many other statements from the Founding Fathers support this notion and can be found in the Federalist Papers (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/) and related documents - all of which show that freedom from religious tyranny is why this country was founded. So, the argument that the democratic process can be used to give rights to some but not others based solely on a relligious ideal is a Federalist notion is assinine and completely unsupported by the intent of the Founding Fathers as expressed in their own words.

Moreover, the 14th Amendment's language that:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

solidifies this notion. Remember, the majority wanted slaves and espoused religious reasons for keeping them as not even whole people under the original Constitution.

Yet, people lie and ignore these ideals based, yet again, solely on religious ideas. Again, I have yet to hear ONE non religious reasons for excluding gay people from getting the benefits automatically given straight people in their marriages.

I've posted them before. Here they are YET AGAIN. (sigh) Again, I don't care about the issue, but I don't like being called names because I affiliate with a certain party.

If you give marriage rights to gays, then there is no effective argument against marrying siblings, plural marriage, or anything else. What is the argument then against me marrying my brother? You see, you then become the bigot in that scenario, because you would resoundingly say I couldn't. Gay marriage is inherently bigoted because it excludes sibling marriage, incestuous marriage, sibling marriage, animal marriage, marrying the dead as they do in France, or anything else people want to do. People leave their pets their estates, so why can't they marry their pets? Why would you say that I can't marry my brother and give him the same rights as a spouse? You are being bigoted by excluding me from marriage. Why can't I marry two women, or two men, or a man and a woman? Can you present ANY argument, once gay marriage is in question, why any scenario for marriage shouldn't be allowed that is not a moral or religious one?
That is also the due process clause you cited. Marriage is not a right enumerated in the constitution, so the 14th amendment is irrelevant. Thomas Jefferson also argued against "spreading the wealth" and argued that we should periodically have armed revoltutions against the federal government, somehow you missed that one. "The tree of liberty must be, time to time, watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants." Maybe you should go to war against the people of California? LOL!

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I don't want to live under Obama either

Hey ! The Canadian border is just a hop a skip and a jump from your digs!

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Hey ! The Canadian border is just a hop a skip and a jump from your digs!

The difference is that Canada is what the US will be under Obama. No thanks. Australia looks better. I do the Canadian accounting at work. Obama only WISHES he could raise taxes that high! LOL! Imagine living with San Diego prices on midwestern wages with free crappy health care. That's Canada.

Besides, I respect democracy and won't whine to the courts (like some people here) or threaten to run away ala alec Baldwin. Nope, I'm an American first and foremost and will ride out Obama's term.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The difference is that Canada is what the US will be under Obama. No thanks. Australia looks better. I do the Canadian accounting at work. Obama only WISHES he could raise taxes that high! LOL! Imagine living with San Diego prices on midwestern wages with free crappy health care. That's Canada.

Besides, I respect democracy and won't whine to the courts (like some people here) or threaten to run away ala alec Baldwin. Nope, I'm an American first and foremost and will ride out Obama's term.

I grew up in San Diego. It seems that the wages there were midwestern even with the high cost of living...not sure if it is still the same but I know the real estate bubble bursted very badly in that town.As high as the cost of living is up here at least the wages match it better than SD.As far as the gay marriage thing I 'm personally not for marriage period.but I think sooner or later it will happen .It's just a matter of time.