Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

California and gay marraige

cjl
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2010 9:57:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Great link...so, no happiness about this? Well, I am. Change is long overdue here. But I will find somthing else to discuss. Thread closed.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 1:03:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/5/2010 9:57:05 PM, cjl wrote:
Great link...so, no happiness about this? Well, I am. Change is long overdue here. But I will find somthing else to discuss. Thread closed.

Reopened. I have mixed feelings. I'm not crazy about it coming about this way. I don't like an activist judiciary, and am not completely convinced gay marriage is a civil right. Although i am personally in favor of it, my personal wants do not override what i think is right in process and principle.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 1:13:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think it is pathetic that this issue is still an issue.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 1:16:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 1:13:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I think it is pathetic that this issue is still an issue.

Oddly enough, it's not one of the issues that i care as much about as i probably should. I'm somewhat of a heretic among my gay peers. However, regarding your statement. Do you think that if gay marriage was put to a referendum in the UK it would pass?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 1:28:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 1:16:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/6/2010 1:13:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I think it is pathetic that this issue is still an issue.

Oddly enough, it's not one of the issues that i care as much about as i probably should. I'm somewhat of a heretic among my gay peers. However, regarding your statement. Do you think that if gay marriage was put to a referendum in the UK it would pass?

We have had same sex civil partnerships since 2005, they confer all the rights of marriage, and are referred to as marriages. I nearly actually said... 'but we do have gay marriage' because in common parlance and practice we do. I am not even sure if there is much of a campaign to change the terminology.

But yea I think it would.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 2:19:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 1:28:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/6/2010 1:16:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/6/2010 1:13:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I think it is pathetic that this issue is still an issue.

Oddly enough, it's not one of the issues that i care as much about as i probably should. I'm somewhat of a heretic among my gay peers. However, regarding your statement. Do you think that if gay marriage was put to a referendum in the UK it would pass?

We have had same sex civil partnerships since 2005, they confer all the rights of marriage, and are referred to as marriages. I nearly actually said... 'but we do have gay marriage' because in common parlance and practice we do. I am not even sure if there is much of a campaign to change the terminology.

But yea I think it would.

We've had it in Massachusetts for some years now. Since the commonwealth hasn't crumbled or been struck from on high; i would guess that it would pass a referendum here now, because no one really cares (except the extremes of both sides), but it might be a narrow victory depending on the current mood. It's a self interest issue which i'm not crazy about. It's interesting though that you don't actually have "gay marriage" per se, and i didn't know that. However, i think the accommodation made would be easier to swallow for most here.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 2:28:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 2:19:42 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/6/2010 1:28:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/6/2010 1:16:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/6/2010 1:13:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I think it is pathetic that this issue is still an issue.

Oddly enough, it's not one of the issues that i care as much about as i probably should. I'm somewhat of a heretic among my gay peers. However, regarding your statement. Do you think that if gay marriage was put to a referendum in the UK it would pass?

We have had same sex civil partnerships since 2005, they confer all the rights of marriage, and are referred to as marriages. I nearly actually said... 'but we do have gay marriage' because in common parlance and practice we do. I am not even sure if there is much of a campaign to change the terminology.

But yea I think it would.

We've had it in Massachusetts for some years now. Since the commonwealth hasn't crumbled or been struck from on high; i would guess that it would pass a referendum here now, because no one really cares (except the extremes of both sides), but it might be a narrow victory depending on the current mood. It's a self interest issue which i'm not crazy about. It's interesting though that you don't actually have "gay marriage" per se, and i didn't know that. However, i think the accommodation made would be easier to swallow for most here.

Well to be honest I had to double check... everyone refers to it as marriage.

For me it is simple, the government exists to enforce rights and contracts. Marriage is a contract. There are no reasons why someone should be arbitarily prohibited from entering into such a contract with a friend, a lover, or indeed friends and lovers, soley because of gender or sexuality.

So the rabbi wont marry you and your partner, that is his right, so the wiccan high priestess will marry you and your partner, that is her right. The state should not care, it should ignore the term marriage and only recognise civil unions.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 2:32:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 2:28:09 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/6/2010 2:19:42 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/6/2010 1:28:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/6/2010 1:16:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/6/2010 1:13:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I think it is pathetic that this issue is still an issue.

Oddly enough, it's not one of the issues that i care as much about as i probably should. I'm somewhat of a heretic among my gay peers. However, regarding your statement. Do you think that if gay marriage was put to a referendum in the UK it would pass?

We have had same sex civil partnerships since 2005, they confer all the rights of marriage, and are referred to as marriages. I nearly actually said... 'but we do have gay marriage' because in common parlance and practice we do. I am not even sure if there is much of a campaign to change the terminology.

But yea I think it would.

We've had it in Massachusetts for some years now. Since the commonwealth hasn't crumbled or been struck from on high; i would guess that it would pass a referendum here now, because no one really cares (except the extremes of both sides), but it might be a narrow victory depending on the current mood. It's a self interest issue which i'm not crazy about. It's interesting though that you don't actually have "gay marriage" per se, and i didn't know that. However, i think the accommodation made would be easier to swallow for most here.

Well to be honest I had to double check... everyone refers to it as marriage.

For me it is simple, the government exists to enforce rights and contracts. Marriage is a contract. There are no reasons why someone should be arbitarily prohibited from entering into such a contract with a friend, a lover, or indeed friends and lovers, soley because of gender or sexuality.

So the rabbi wont marry you and your partner, that is his right, so the wiccan high priestess will marry you and your partner, that is her right. The state should not care, it should ignore the term marriage and only recognise civil unions.

I agree with you, however, to make it more palatable to the people, the divergence in terms is a safer course (politics). If marriage were to become solely a religious term, and not a secular term, i would be okay with that. Got to fly...
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 2:36:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
My two cents on the matter. Yeah, it would be fair for politicians merely to make civil unions equal to marriage in terms of rights and stuff... but why isn't it that way already? The only way to ensure the security of a civil union's rights is to group it with marriage. OKTHNXBAI.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 2:56:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't care if gay people get married or not, but it is an outrage that "married" homosexuals qualify for tax breaks such as the Married Couple's Allowance.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk...

This tax break was designed to give a helping hand to heterosexual couples with children, or who are hoping to start a family.

Obviously, gay people cannot procreate so why should they pay less tax than single people?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 3:01:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 2:56:57 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I don't care if gay people get married or not, but it is an outrage that "married" homosexuals qualify for tax breaks such as the Married Couple's Allowance.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk...

This tax break was designed to give a helping hand to heterosexual couples with children, or who are hoping to start a family.

Obviously, gay people cannot procreate so why should they pay less tax than single people?

Actually thanks to adoption, surrogacy etc that argument is no longer valid.

However, how is it right that I am robbed so that others are paid to procreate?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 3:30:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 1:03:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/5/2010 9:57:05 PM, cjl wrote:
Great link...so, no happiness about this? Well, I am. Change is long overdue here. But I will find somthing else to discuss. Thread closed.

Reopened. I have mixed feelings. I'm not crazy about it coming about this way. I don't like an activist judiciary, and am not completely convinced gay marriage is a civil right. Although i am personally in favor of it, my personal wants do not override what i think is right in process and principle.:

The thing that pisses me off is that the homosexual lobby in California (I used to be a California resident) for years said, "Let's have a popular vote," thinking that because Cali is a Blue State, that they'd win a landslide victory.

Prop 8 (California Marriage Protection Act) was up for vote like 4 times, and each time, Californians unanimously voted in favor of it -- meaning, they didn't want homosexuals to marry.

Each time activist judges overturned in. Now, don't get me wrong. I agree with gay marriage. There's no legitimate reason not to allow it, but what I can't stand is activist judges.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 3:36:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree with you, however, to make it more palatable to the people, the divergence in terms is a safer course (politics). If marriage were to become solely a religious term, and not a secular term, i would be okay with that.:

You'd be astonished how many people get hung up on words faster than they do concepts, because their preconceived notions disallow them to fully understand the concept described.

I've long advocated what Cerebral Narcissist is saying, yet a lot of people take it the wrong way because I said the dirty word of "civil union."
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 4:31:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 3:30:47 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Prop 8 (California Marriage Protection Act) was up for vote like 4 times, and each time, Californians unanimously voted in favor of it -- meaning, they didn't want homosexuals to marry.

It was unanimous, was it?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Because 52% is a unanimous vote.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 4:33:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 3:30:47 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Each time activist judges overturned in. Now, don't get me wrong. I agree with gay marriage. There's no legitimate reason not to allow it, but what I can't stand is activist judges.

"Activist judges" are probably what saves your republic more often than not. The judges follow the same letter of the law that other judges do - they just perceive a different interpretation.

In this case, the judge saw that Prop 8 violated the rights of the minority, as protected and set out in the Constitution. Now, how can you not stand someone who defends the Constitution? Is this another unanimous opinion of yours?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 4:44:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
In this case, the judge saw that Prop 8 violated the rights of the minority, as protected and set out in the Constitution. Now, how can you not stand someone who defends the Constitution? Is this another unanimous opinion of yours?:

I do love those who protect the Constitution, and in this case it ended up being a good decision. But why not stop the vote from happening beforehand since it is on voting for things that is unconstitutional? Had Prop 8 been shot down by the voters, I'm sure you wouldn't have heard a thing about the legitimacy of the vote, since it would have favored their beliefs.

There seems to be something very unconstitutional about allowing people to resort to a popular vote only to turn it around when things don't go your way.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 4:51:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 4:44:35 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I do love those who protect the Constitution, and in this case it ended up being a good decision. But why not stop the vote from happening beforehand since it is on voting for things that is unconstitutional? Had Prop 8 been shot down by the voters, I'm sure you wouldn't have heard a thing about the legitimacy of the vote, since it would have favored their beliefs.

Two reasons:

One, the vote itself is not unconstitutional, nor was it binding. You can have a vote on something, and not actually implement it., at least that is my understanding of the Californian Prop voting system.

Secondly, there were already cases being prepared in the event that it went the other way as well. However, the fact is, if it had been shot down, then the likelihood of it going to court would've been lower, yes - but only because it was affirming a status-quo position. Prop 8 passing changed the status-quo, and therefore invited all sorts of challenges to it.

Had it not passed, there wouldn't be as big a stink among the legal community, simply because a "No" vote would have reaffirmed the law's position on the matter. "Yes" challenged it.

There seems to be something very unconstitutional about allowing people to resort to a popular vote only to turn it around when things don't go your way.

Again, it's not necessarily about that - it's the legal status-quo either being affirmed or challenged.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 4:56:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
One, the vote itself is not unconstitutional, nor was it binding.:

But that is precisely my point. Why not stop the referendum in the first place, as opposed to overturning the decision four separate times?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 4:59:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 4:56:15 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But that is precisely my point. Why not stop the referendum in the first place, as opposed to overturning the decision four separate times?

Because with California's Prop system, if anyone has a grievance, they can put it to a vote. It's democracy to the extreme.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 5:03:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 4:59:21 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/6/2010 4:56:15 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But that is precisely my point. Why not stop the referendum in the first place, as opposed to overturning the decision four separate times?

Because with California's Prop system, if anyone has a grievance, they can put it to a vote. It's democracy to the extreme.:

The US does not follow a Direct Democracy, for precisely this reason. The vote should have never taken place to begin with, because you cannot vote against things deemed as an inalienable right.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 5:04:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 5:03:04 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The US does not follow a Direct Democracy, for precisely this reason. The vote should have never taken place to begin with, because you cannot vote against things deemed as an inalienable right.

The US does not, yes - California, however, does. They're trying to change that with a new state constitution, but that has to be voted on, you know.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2010 7:15:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 5:04:23 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/6/2010 5:03:04 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The US does not follow a Direct Democracy, for precisely this reason. The vote should have never taken place to begin with, because you cannot vote against things deemed as an inalienable right.

The US does not, yes - California, however, does. They're trying to change that with a new state constitution, but that has to be voted on, you know.

Seriously? Why is a Canadian informing me of this?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 6:39:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 4:59:21 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/6/2010 4:56:15 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But that is precisely my point. Why not stop the referendum in the first place, as opposed to overturning the decision four separate times?

Because with California's Prop system, if anyone has a grievance, they can put it to a vote. It's democracy to the extreme.

But what good does it do if it is overturned after the people have decided? Bad, very bad. Democracy? Extreme? It's extreme all right, but I wouldn't call it democracy. I personally don't care if the majority of Californians want gay marriage, but I don't like seeing the peoples right abused.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2010 12:19:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/6/2010 7:15:30 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/6/2010 5:04:23 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/6/2010 5:03:04 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The US does not follow a Direct Democracy, for precisely this reason. The vote should have never taken place to begin with, because you cannot vote against things deemed as an inalienable right.

The US does not, yes - California, however, does. They're trying to change that with a new state constitution, but that has to be voted on, you know.

Seriously? Why is a Canadian informing me of this?

Canadians are just smarter and more informed? Idk. I never heard anything about it and just read this to get a better understanding of whats happening cause I had no clue.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave