Proposition 8 passes in California

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

PS...wasnt the 14 Amendment in reference to slaves and African Americans?

It was. But, it applies to all Americans and to many other issues than that.

Here is what it says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

For those interested - here is a fairly good discussion on the 14th Amend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

[markolas]

About all I'm going to say to this is that if I found out that anyone I personally knew voted for one of these amendments, my relationship with them would be over.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by markolas

About all I'm going to say to this is that if I found out that anyone I personally knew voted for one of these amendments, my relationship with them would be over.

Whew...is that worth the strife?

And you changed your avatar!!

[markolas]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Whew...is that worth the strife?

And you changed your avatar!!

Well, there's no strife if I just don't have anything to do with them.

Somebody else on here took my avatar, so I switched it. I think this one suits me so much better anyway.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

About all I'm going to say to this is that if I found out that anyone I personally knew voted for one of these amendments, my relationship with them would be over.

I tend to agree.


It is rather hard to ignore that someone you call a good friend (have over to your house, etc. ) considers you a second class citizen. I am not saying it can't be done. But, it would be hard to reconcile that bigotry unless you thought you could make them see that this is bigotry, writing hate into the Const., etc. Most people think it is just gays being uppity. They do not get the second class citizen part and/or think gays can contract into the same level of protection, etc. - which, of course, they cannot.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Are you joking? You're actually comparing the rights of sexual preference with the rights of blacks for being African American? Let's just compare oranges and bananas while we're at it.

Brandon, one of these days ask your brother if he prefers to be gay, or if he just IS.

Sexual orientation isn't a preference. Yes, some people "dabble" or "experiment," but those of us who truly are gay didn't choose to be.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Brandon, one of these days ask your brother if he prefers to be gay, or if he just IS.

Sexual orientation isn't a preference. Yes, some people "dabble" or "experiment," but those of us who truly are gay didn't choose to be.

I meant to say sexual orientation...I can see how that sounded wrong. And I also didn't mean to imply that my brother's stance represents everybody that's gay. My apologies there, too.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I meant to say sexual orientation...I can see how that sounded wrong. And I also didn't mean to imply that my brother's stance represents everybody that's gay. My apologies there, too.

We may have to flog you before you go

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

We may have to flog you before you go

I love your signature. God, strand, you make me smile.

[strandinthewind]

Also --

New Zealand does not yet allow same-sex marriage proper, but allows civil unions that provide virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. However, there are no obstacles to eventual reform such as statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage, as is the case due to statutory and constitutional enactments within much of the United States, as well as Australia.

On immigration to New Zealand, couples that have same-sex marriages from countries that allow them may have their marriages recognised as a de facto partnership, but only specific forms of overseas registered partnerships are recognised as the legal equivalent of a New Zealand civil union. As of 2005, this only concerns registered partnerships from Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the US states of Vermont and New Jersey.[1] Adoptions by same-sex couples are also not legal, although debate continues about eventual legislative reform in this area.

During the 2005 election, Prime Minister Helen Clark admitted that she thought it was discriminatory to exclude same-sex couples from the Marriage Act 1955, but said she would not push to change it.[2]

On July 2, 2007, George Ireland of Auckland's Milne Ireland Walker legal firm was asked for his opinion on current matters related to same-sex marriage in Sweden, which may result in LGBT access to fully fledged marriage as opposed to the parallel spousal rights and responsibilities legislation that allows for civil unions, which have existed there since the early nineties. He suggested that given the New Zealand Labour Party-led government's strong record on rights for LGBT New Zealanders, such change would probably occur. Former Destiny New Zealand party president Richard Lewis agreed, from a negative and social conservative perspective.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...in_New_Zealand

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Also --

New Zealand does not yet allow same-sex marriage proper, but allows civil unions that provide virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. However, there are no obstacles to eventual reform such as statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage, as is the case due to statutory and constitutional enactments within much of the United States, as well as Australia.

On immigration to New Zealand, couples that have same-sex marriages from countries that allow them may have their marriages recognised as a de facto partnership, but only specific forms of overseas registered partnerships are recognised as the legal equivalent of a New Zealand civil union. As of 2005, this only concerns registered partnerships from Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the US states of Vermont and New Jersey.[1] Adoptions by same-sex couples are also not legal, although debate continues about eventual legislative reform in this area.

During the 2005 election, Prime Minister Helen Clark admitted that she thought it was discriminatory to exclude same-sex couples from the Marriage Act 1955, but said she would not push to change it.[2]

On July 2, 2007, George Ireland of Auckland's Milne Ireland Walker legal firm was asked for his opinion on current matters related to same-sex marriage in Sweden, which may result in LGBT access to fully fledged marriage as opposed to the parallel spousal rights and responsibilities legislation that allows for civil unions, which have existed there since the early nineties. He suggested that given the New Zealand Labour Party-led government's strong record on rights for LGBT New Zealanders, such change would probably occur. Former Destiny New Zealand party president Richard Lewis agreed, from a negative and social conservative perspective.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...in_New_Zealand

well then maybe you should come with us. *wink*

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

well then maybe you should come with us. *wink*

Well, I have certain demand that I have not checked the legality of in NZ

[estranged4life]

Take it for what it is, but according to exit polls shown on NBC tonight, 70% of African Americans who voted in support of Obama in California also voted in favor of Proposition 8...Whereas Hispanics who supported Obama were less likely to vote in favor of Proposition 8 (I believe the stat for Hispanic voters was 56% in favor and 44% against) .

[Tellurium]

^ I dislike breaking homophobia down into race categories. The implications of that are really problematic. There is only one reason people voted for Prop 8 and skin color has nout to do with it. There are reasons for correlations such as the above stats, but it's not really causal or practical information, IMO. But I guess people can't help but report the stuff. *shrugs*

Same-sex marriage is an inevitability in America. Most under-30s are completely for it. It's the over-60 crowd that's opposing it strongly. So you can see a generational shift in attitudes. In time it will pass, and these bans will be looked on as historic embarassments.

That said, glad I live in Canada where it's legal now.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by Tellurium

That said, glad I live in Canada where it's legal now.

It's a real shame that the only places where this is legal now all have like 10 months of winter.