Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?
 

Or anyone you know being affected by any anti-gay laws that were passed this election?

I have a coulple friends in California that we're hoping to get married soon...not so much anymore. :sniff:

Just wondering if there were any other stories out there.

I'm being affected by Prop 8. It's seriously pissing me off. I think each and every single person who voted for it should be deported. If you're stupid enough to think your rights include determining what rights other people have, you don't belong in America because you have no understanding of what rights are or what freedom means.

I'm appalled that the Cali constitution can be modified by a simple majority vote. Doesn't this immediately lead to a "tyranny of the majority" situation? It can only be revoked with a 2/3 majority of the state congress and another majority referendum.

Oh the irony.

Yes.

Hmmm.... interesting

I agree, it makes no sense.

It also angers me that so many people from outside the actual state of California were putting money into the "Vote Yes" campaign. i.e The Mormon and Catholic churchs. Proves once again that religion has more power than it should have.

Proves that any organized group wields more power - whether its a church, a lobby or anything else.

This thread has potential :corn:

I know right? Total win for my first thread!

But seriously, what really sent me over the edge was what happened in Arkansas, not allowing gay couples to adopt. I'm assuming gay marriage is already banned there...so basicaly if you're gay you can't adopt.

I never thought I'd see that happen.

Actually it's being challenged in court right now. Amendments are supposed to be a simple majority, but major changes to the fundamental structure of the Constitution like this one which basically change the Constitution from being an instrument to protect civil rights to being one that violates civil rights, must first be passed by the state legislature and if that happens, it has to get a 2/3 majority of all voters. There's no chance of that happening.

Because Prop 8 didn't follow this procedure, the California Supreme Court will shoot it down.

Oh, the irony indeed. Like it or not, freedom and democracy means that we've got the right to vote in some really boneheaded stuff.

Living in a country that has such freedom has its benefits, but then, you have to deal with the crap too. On the bright side, you've got the right to express your opinion, no matter how radically that opinion advocates removing others' freedom in the process.

I'm not affected by these types of laws in any way - I don't have any gay friends or relatives - but I still think they're really stupid.

I've said it before: if we live in a world where it's legal for people who barely know each other to get married in Vegas on a whim, then get divorced a few days later -- if they happen to be male and female, respectively -- why the hell do we need to ban people who really love one another and have a serious commitment from getting married just because they're the same gender? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I'll tell you what it is -- it's Ostrich syndrome. You know, hiding your head in the sand. These people don't want to believe that two same-sex people could possibly actually love each other; they think it's pure deviant lust, so they think they can simply legislate against its expression and it will go away. Stupid.

Our rights don't come from government, therefore government can't take them away. Our rights can't be given, taken, bought, sold, or voted away.

I would like to take back a statement I made earlier. I said all people who voted yes on Prop 8 should be deported. I realize now I was very wrong.

Where would we send them? I wouldn't want to send these people to any other country. I can't think of a country I hate so much, I'd send a bunch of redneck retards there. Rather than deporting them, we should line them up and shoot them dead.

After all, if they've got a right to vote on whether someone else has the right to marry, I have the right to vote to take away their right to life. The civil rights of gay people to marry are no more or less important than the right to life for those who voted to violate their rights.

The civil rights struggle for gays in America is no less important or crucial than was the civil rights struggle of the blacks during the 60s.

With marriage becoming more popular again here, I expect this to become an issue here in Australia also.

Currently it's illegal for same sex marriage in any state as far as i know. I think this is wrong and I just can't understand why it matters so much to some people that it should be illegal.

Surely another couple's marriage is not anything to do with anyone else other than the couple involved...regardless of their sex. I would draw the line at people marrying their pets though. I'd have to vote against that I'm afraid...regardless of whether they have a 'god given right' to do so or not.

Good gravy, Radar. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel, OK?

The question of "rights" is complex. Are we born with rights by virtue of being human, or is it awarded by the government under which we live?

Enlightenment philosophes would say rights are integral to humanity and that all government is inherently oppressive, by its very nature.

Others, more pragmatically, might say "your rights end where mine begin."

And that is really the purpose of government, isn't it? It's about determining where one person's rights end, and another's begin, and enforcing the balance between the two. Pure, and distilled.

If you are a US resident, you have the "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The First Constitutional Congress (and John Locke) said we should have the right to "life, liberty, and property." And then the Bill of Rights came along to give us some other stuff, like free speech, peaceful assembly, right to bear arms, trial by jury, that kind of thing. Amendments came along giving women the right to vote, etc.

My point, though, is are these all "inalienable rights" or are we just lucky enough to live in a time and place that recognizes them?

What gives you the right to do whatever it is you think you have a right to do? Or who gives you the right?

What is a "right" anyway?

Is it given by God? Whose God? How do you know?

I am not arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I said as much. I just think you would be a much better asset to your cause if you had a more logical argument than "we've got the right." 'Cause what you're really saying is "I want this, others want this, and I want more people to agree with us than disagree."

lol...you have fun with this argument you're about to have Juni. lol I think I'll just watch. :D

(if you're wondering what I'm talking about, just do a search using the words Radar and rights) lol...again.

It's OK. I love debating poli sci.

Uhuh...lol That's great. :) Have fun with it. ;)

OK, have searched, now see what you're saying. Something about having a battle of wits with the unarmed?

Well, let's just say that it's one of Radars favourite subjects, and he likes repeating himself. Most of us have given up getting involved in it. :)

Note to self: Read all threads, not just the few that look intriguing in the 10 minutes between classes. ;)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Radar is an ideologue, and a fundamentalist, and he and I frequently disagree, but he is not witless. Strap in.

I would liken it more to arguing with a deaf man.

No offense intended, Radar, that was just my impression.

I acknowledge your retraction of this statement, but ...

If they were deported, and all snuck straight back in, would they then be illegal immigrants? ;)

If Radar wants to be offended, that's his right. ;)

It's your right not to care. :D

Oh...and it's my right to be amused. :)

Really, I think the main thing that's f*cked up with the U.S Constitution and other state constiutions is that they allow rights to be taken away from people.

I mean, think about it. At any moment, even though it's VERY unlikely, the House and the Senate could be overrun with racists and biggots and our consitution would allow them to take away rights from blacks, women, athiests, muslims, you name it.

As long as three forths of the the states approve, it's all good! We could adopt slavery again if we REALLY wanted to.

That's what happened in California with Prop 8. The courts said full out that it was wrong to deny gays the right to marry. And everybody went CRAZY and loved it, and gay people were thrilled and everybody wanted to get married.

But through the tyrnnay of the majority, people were able to shut out the courts opinion and take away the rights of a group of citizens.

I'm not saying that constitutions shouldn't be able to change. Of course they should be able to change. We'd be in major trouble if they couldn't change because our country is in a constant state change. Wow I said change like 400 times in that sentence.

But I think when it comes to individual rights, that don't affect anybody else's rights, I think once those rights are given, they should never be able to be taken away.

Yup. :us:

:corn: want some?

Actually the US constitution has a great system of checks and balances. The Senate and House have been over run in the past with bigots and what not. We have made some great progress overcoming these problems in the States in the 232 years we've been around. I believe we will make more progress in time.

California seems to be using a full democracy, which in essence is mob rule. The whim of the majority. Not good in the long term, complete democracy tends to tear itself apart over the long haul.

The U.S. is a republic. It is much harder to change and does not depend on the mob rule of the majority. Make no mistake, the framers of our government knew the difference between a democracy and a republic. I don't personally believe our constitution is fucked up in the slightest. It has and will continue to withstand the test of time, with very few changes.

Oh, and do fasten in if you are going to argue with Radar. He is a man firm conviction. You won't change his mind about anything, you will have a fine discussion.

Not to mention he thinks he is always right and if you disagree with his position you should be deported. As HLJ stated, oh the irony..:rolleyes:

I got my first Cellar ass-kickin' arguing inalienable rights, iirc.

;)

Aliens should have the same rights as anyone else. Only, I don't like the way things started out in MARS ATTACKS! Not very friendly, if you ask me.

:alien: :alien2: :gray:

Join me in stopping alien autopsies!

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f8...an/autopsy.jpg

Meanwhile, Proposition 8 is about organized religion doing politics. They are supposed to have tax exemption because they have no political voice. Mormon Church can now be prosecuted? Or just taxed?

They can make signs and stomp around and whine, but California voters are the ones who made the final decision at the polls, not the Mormon Church.

Right on Bullitt

This is NOT about religion. Its about organized groups expressing their opinions. Taxes/prosecution have nothing to do with it either. IT could have just as easily been the NRA, the KKK, a union or whatever. Its all the same. Just because you dislike a group or their stance doesn't matter.

Hmmm...even if it's ACORN? :eyebrow:

That's where it gets complicated. People can have their opinions fine and dandy, but when you take intentional action to screw with the system to meet your own ends then you are really in the wrong.
Advertise all you want, but do not screw with the system.

That said, I'm not a fan of the Mormon church, esp. after taking my American religious history seminar, but the members are entitled to their opinions and can donate to support campaigning out of their own pockets if they so choose. They may be trying to persuade people one way or the other, but again it is the VOTER who casts the vote and participates in the actual decision. We have the power of choice and a majority of the people made their choice.

Good one Shawnee!

The Mormon church spent $20 million to campaign for Prop 8, and many church leaders from Utah traveled to California to help and many other members phoned from Utah.

THEY made this about religion. About a religious group sticking its nose into another groups right.

@ Bullitt: Aside from the fact that it was a few individuals in that organization who were screwing around, I'll agree with you there. However, I'm sure there is a Morman or two out there with some pretty questionable devices as well.

So, aside from the bad apples, you can't be on the fence on this one. I don't think you are, Bullitt, I was referring to the ACORN discussion prior to the election, where I might have had the impression that there was actual "line-drawing" on the part of c-man regarding the role of organized groups. IIRC, it was a no-no, then. No to recruiting voters for your cause. Unless you're part of a more radical group?

Waffles.

Oh without a doubt, there are manipulative people within any group who will go to extreme measures to get their way. I don't recall what exactly was said by everyone in the pre-election ACORN discussion, and I don't really feel like digging because i have ten
minutes till my next class :D

BUT, I am not on the fence on this issue in any way. I believe in individual and collective rights to express/advertise their opinions in whatever way they see fit so long as it does not break the law or infringe on the rights of others. What I have a problem with is people who seek to twist the balance of a democratic decision through direct action. Whether that be hacking voting machines or casting votes for the deceased. Whether it is a group or an individual who does this, the intention is the same to me and should be punished because it undermines the whole process: a collective decision made by the individual decisions of individual voters.

I made zero statement on the California decision. A more serious problem now exists. Religion imposed on all other people.

This month, the Catholic Church will conduct a meeting to determine how American doctors can define death. More religion that must be imposed on all Americans. The Catholic Church, like the Mormon Church, has decided that it must impose church doctrine on American laws. It has ordered all Catholic lawmakers to impose church doctrine in American laws. Shamefully, many Americans remained silent when both the Mormons and Catholics would pervert American laws with their religion.

Nothing was posted about whether Californians decided rightly or wrongly. Bullitt misrepresented what I posted. Question is whether the Mormon church should be prosecuted OR heavily taxed. By American religious standards, the Mormons did evil. Should they be burned at the stake - because those are laws also advocated by religion?

A church that advocates peace and lives in peace also remains silent about American laws. A church is only a conduit between a man and his god - not a political action group.

Bullitt pretty much covered it for me. Have an opinion - whatever opinion, just don't fuck with or try to cheat.

Doesn't affect me in the slightest. We have civil partnerships in the UK, as I think much of Europe in fact. I know quite a few people who have married under this agreement, both famous (ie I've read about it) and personal friends.

Doesn't seem to have caused any particular trouble.

Yes.

Pico, you didn't answer either of the questions. Any reason?

Which questions were asked of me, Classic?

Uh, Oops wrong thread. Take a look at "Does Anyone feel like Bailing"

There was a church in North Carolina (I think) that said it wouldn't give communion to anyone who voted for Obama. This, to me, seems like an abuse.

Pancakes.

Coercion!

Bagels.

California also had, and still has, civil unions. They guarantee the same-sex partners same rights that opposite-sex couples have.

The battle is over the word "Marriage", and what it means, not over what rights certain domestic partners do or do not have.

Ah. Arguing over semantics.
Well, there you go, it's not that Americans are more conservative than Europeans, it's that European gays aren't as pedantic.

Our rights don't come from government. Government is just here to protect those rights. We are born with our rights and they are one segment of natural law. There is no such thing as a Constitutional right. None of our rights come from the Constitution. The Constitution was just written so that other people would realize that all governmental power is derived from the rights of people, and that government may not have any powers that we have not granted to it. This means we may not grant any powers to government over and above the rights of any individual person.

Since no person has the right to use force to prevent the marriage of others, they may not grant this power to government.

How do I know what our rights are? Simple. We are born with the right to do ANYTHINGwe want as long as our actions don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. This means, since I own myself, I own my voice. I therefore have the right to freedom of expression. You also have freedom of expression, but you do not have the right to go through your life without ever being offended by the expression of others. You don't have the right to use force against others to prevent you from getting your feelings hurt.

One persons right to marry any consenting other they choose is no more or less important than another person's right to life. Rights are rights are rights. If you violate one of my rights, I may violate one of the rights you hold more dearly.

Exactly, it is not illegal to try and influence people (advertising). As distasteful as it might be to hear what some people say, they have a right to say it. Yeah it's annoying to listen to the Westboro Baptist Church people spread their hate, and yeah the Mormons are a bunch of weirdos in my opinion, but they have equal rights to spread their message so long as they don't literally force anyone to do anything is what I'm getting at.

And TW, I was not intentionally twisting your words. I saw you mention the Prop 8 in your post and that's what I built my response on simple as that.

I'm not gonna be happy till "separate but equal" is invalidated at the national level.
:angry:

ETA: and even then, I probably won't be happy. But that's my problem.

So true. I found myself looking up the etymology of the word marriage, and wondering who got to decide it meant a religious union (and yes, they are arguing man and woman as religious tenet.)

It's a word made up of letters. Who gives a crap who uses it? Seriously, is Prissy and Biff's marriage somehow threatened because Jack and Doug use the same word? Methinks P and B feel threatened, not secure in their union, and afraid their God will let others who perhaps haven't fallen prey to social convention, bearing long silences over breakfast and lightly disguised hatred, into...gasp...heaven.

So we only have the same rights as a worm or a coyote or a bird or parasite??? Huh?

There you go interpreting again. That gets into the realm of opinion vs fact and assumption.

Oh I gotcha why didn't you just say it was an eye for an eye - blah blah blah. That makes real good sense - in the sandbox or at recess.

Damn facts getting in the way of a good argument - - - again.