The merged Gay Marriage thread

[Mojo_PeiPei]

So does whats going on in California anger and disturb anyone else? Gay Marriage argument aside, you have a Liberal activist mayor breaking state laws and spitting on the will of the people.

Proposition 22

On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California.”

Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.

Final vote counts revealed that Proposition 22 won in 52 of California's 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco. The six counties which did not approve Prop. 22 were all in the immediate San Francisco Bay area, including: Alameda county, Marin county, San Francisco county, Santa Cruz county, Sonoma county, and Yolo county.

2/3's of one of the most liberal states in the country voted for this. Now you have a rogue mayor committing a felonious act by knowingly and willingly breaking state law. This shit is ridiculous, not to mention it sets a horrible precident. Perhaps whats most upsetting is that no one is really doing anything about it.

[filtherton]

I don't have a problem with it. I think it is about damn time somebody did something like this.
These actions are akin to sit-ins during the civil rights era, which were also illegal. It's called civil disobedience and ever since the boston tea party it has been as american as apple pie.

For a closer to home analogy, in minnesota, gov pawlenty is willingly violating federal law with his drug reimportation website. No one but the fda and pharmacuetical companies care about that.

[brianna]

while i do think that Gavin Neusome made a move under somewhat dubious circumstance I can't say that i angers me (admittedly this may be due to my pro-gay marriage stance).

San Francisco is making a statement in a national debate -- something that as the default national capitol of homosexuality it has ever right to do -- especially since the city and the surrounding areas overwhelming support gay marriage. Occasionally the people have to rebel against an unjust law and I think this is a case of well placed civil disobedience.

[Ustwo]

Hehe its ok if they violate the law if its a law you don't like?

I think jail time is in order, it is the proper price of civil disobedience is it not?

[Dostoevsky]

Filtherton- It is not civil disobedience when a city government knowingly violates state law. Civil disobedience occurs when citizens, not governments, refuse to follow laws they disagree with. Crooked politics is not the same thing as "good ole' American" civil disobedience popularized by Henry David Thoreau in 1849.

[brianna]

dostoevsky: but there is nothing that people can do to fabricate marriage without the law being involved -- don't you think we need some sort of governmental diaobediance to react in cases such as this?

[filtherton]

Originally posted by Dostoevsky
Filtherton- It is not civil disobedience when a city government knowingly violates state law. Civil disobedience occurs when citizens, not governments, refuse to follow laws they disagree with. Crooked politics is not the same thing as "good ole' American" civil disobedience popularized by Henry David Thoreau in 1849.

From m-w.com

Main Entry: civil disobedience
Function: noun
: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government

I see no exclusion for municipal employees and i think your characterization of crooked politics is a little off base. How is this in any way "crooked"?

Originally posted by Ustwo
Hehe its ok if they violate the law if its a law you don't like?

I think jail time is in order, it is the proper price of civil disobedience is it not?

I'm sure they are prepared to go to jail. That is one of the risks for civil disobediance.
I know you probably subscribe to the "All goverment laws are just platform" ustwo, but i think that under some circumstances breaking the law is just fine.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

I don't agree with strict gun control laws. So when I'm in a position of power I'm going to go and issue a bunch of conceal and carry permits to whoever wants them, as a form of civil disobedience.

[nanofever]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I don't agree with strict gun control laws. So when I'm in a position of power I'm going to go and issue a bunch of conceal and carry permits to whoever wants them, as a form of civil disobedience.

Because when a gun's right to equal treatment is outlawed, only outlaw guns will have rights ?

[filtherton]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I don't agree with strict gun control laws. So when I'm in a position of power I'm going to go and issue a bunch of conceal and carry permits to whoever wants them, as a form of civil disobedience.

That about sums it up. To make the analogy even more accurate, you'd be issuing conceal and carry permits to people with the knowledge that you might be arrested and also that the permits most likely won't be worth paper they are printed on. Sounds pretty harmful to me.

[Benny]

This whole issue nation wide is so ridiculous that it's just pathetic.

Americans are all upset that an institution that they cant keep going 53% of the time is somehow going to be tainted by someone else trying to do better than that.

53% of Americans drop marriage vows faster than a sour apple but they are SO UPSET when these people want to try their hand at it.

I bet you they would do better than regular americans because it's just the type of thing them boys do good at.

Thats probably what it is, americans dont want them showing them up.

Oh lets preserve the sacred right of matrimony so 53% of us can go out there and fuck it all up just because we had a bad year...

Its fucking ridiculous.... the whole thing is biased and prejudice.

How could they fuck it up any worse than it already is???

[brianna]

well put benny.

i'm flabergasted at the selfishness that this issue has brought out in people -- keep marriage just for heterosexualsseems like a safty blanket for those among us who can't accept that everyone isn't just like them.

[Benny]

It's self serving, but that is nothing new with americans.

But it's also socially irresponsible, and that is so ironic in this case because they percieve this as socially corrosive.

It would keep them together, and off the streets. The spread of aids would go down. Their joint spending capacity to support the economy would go up. They ensure no population expansion, something we will have to begin addressing in the near future.

But none of that stuff makes a hill of beans because homophobes just cant let them officialize it, even though they all went to see Liberachie and knew full well he was a flaming flamingo.
He had sumthin they wanted........

Self serving vengeful hateful americans.

[splck]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
So does whats going on in California anger and disturb anyone else?

Anger and disturb? Nope, not one little bit.
More power to them. One day they'll have equal rights and that's ok with me.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
So does whats going on in California anger and disturb anyone else?

LOL, from the posts in this thread so far, only the non-californians.

[HarmlessRabbit]

I love it when people get all worked up over something that IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE.

Mojo said:

2/3's of one of the most liberal states in the country voted for this. Now you have a rogue mayor committing a felonious act by knowingly and willingly breaking state law.

Unfortunately for Mojo, that's not what californians voted for. They voted to amend section 308 with section 308.5. Let's read the whole thing, shall we?

308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid
by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted
is valid in this state.

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California

What does that say? It says that any marriage recognized as valid in any other state in the USA is valid in California, as long as it is between a man and a woman.

PROP 22 SAID NOTHING, NOT ONE WORD, ABOUT MARRIAGE INSIDE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH.

So stop with the "rogue mayor commiting felonies" crap.

I'm all for gay marriage. Didn't we get past "separate but equal" a long time ago? With the divorce rate at 50% or more, how can gays *hurt* the institution of marriage?

[Superbelt]

Well this isn't even to be classified as civil disobedience.

The mayor is very shrewd in the steps he has taken.

He is saying that any laws on California books are invalid as they violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. As such he has the authority and duty to provide marriage licenses to homosexual couples wishing to be married in the state of California.

Unless Congress can repeal the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. (widespread race riots) AND the full faith and credit clause, AND pass a marriage amendment. Human decency in america just won this battle.

[Halx]

Originally posted by Superbelt
Well this isn't even to be classified as civil disobedience.

The mayor is very shrewd in the steps he has taken.

He is saying that any laws on California books are invalid as they violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. As such he has the authority and duty to provide marriage licenses to homosexual couples wishing to be married in the state of California.

Unless Congress can repeal the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. (widespread race riots) AND the full faith and credit clause, AND pass a marriage amendment. Human decency in america just won this battle.

i sure fuckin' hope so

[ARTelevision]

Whenever issues of "marriage" come up as they relate to laws, I have only one view.

IMO, there should only be legal partnerships between people. Some sort of "marriage" or "civil union" is really just a partnership. All the mixing up of religion and medieval social tradition just makes a mess of what is really just a "contract" between people. I don't understand why anyone would need more than that to be recognized by the law - no matter what their gender.

So, as a direct response to the thread - I don't know why anyone would want to get married. That's the only thing that ever "disturbs" me about marriage.

[Ustwo]

Amusingly no rights are being violated since everyone does have the right to marry. Nor is it a mayors job to decide what state law isn't constitutional. They can challenge in court, but they don't get to decide which law is 'bad' and ignore it.

Also this had done more to hurt gay rights then help, as now states across the country are working to put gay marriage bans into their constitution to prevent such actions. The numbers are on their side as well, even liberal states like Massachusetts, which has elected the most liberal senators year after year the US has been subjected to, can't decide if they should have a total ban, or a ban on gay marriage but allow civil unions.

[Superbelt]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Also this had done more to hurt gay rights then help, as now states across the country are working to put gay marriage bans into their constitution to prevent such actions. The numbers are on their side as well, even liberal states like Massachusetts, which has elected the most liberal senators year after year the US has been subjected to, can't decide if they should have a total ban, or a ban on gay marriage but allow civil unions.

And as I said, unless the full faith and credit clause and equal protections clause get repealed AND a marriage amendment is inserted into the US constitution, (these all have to be done because a marriage amendment will contradict the wording of those two other parts of the constitution) States can pass gay marriage bans to their hearts content. As long as ONE state allows gay marriage, every state has to recognize them.
So if only one state allows gay marriage, that state will become the gay tourism capital of the United States. Everyone flocks there, (spends billions in tourism dollars) gets married and goes home content that they will be required to be recognized.

[mrbuck12000]

Can someone please explain to me:

WHY is it wrong and such a big deal that Gays get married.

Please do not answer with religion involved, nothing about the bible. god, jesus should be in your answer!!!


thanks
Mr b

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by ARTelevision

So, as a direct response to the thread - I don't know why anyone would want to get married. That's the only thing that ever "disturbs" me about marriage.

I wanted to get married because my then girlfriend wanted to get married, and that was a good enough reason for me.

People would ask after I was married if it felt diffrent or was different and the answer of course was no.

[Strange Famous]

There are a lot of threads on this already I think, but personally, I dont think there is anything wrong with gay people getting married.

[nanofever]

Lebell can we get a thread merger because at least three discussions on this are active.

[prb]

But gay people have never been allowed to marry each other before. That's why it's called marriage. Must obey tradition.

[Superbelt]

And interracial marriages were illegal until the early 1960's in america. Never before were they allowed to marry.
"Marriage is for humans, Gods children. We shouldn't taint ourselves with lesser beings"


Should we have obeyed tradition then?

[Bill O'Rights]

**5 threads on this subject, in politics alone, have been merged here**

carry on

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Superbelt
And interracial marriages were illegal until the early 1960's in america. Never before were they allowed to marry.
"Marriage is for humans, Gods children. We shouldn't taint ourselves with lesser beings"


Should we have obeyed tradition then?

Hear hear! Let's allow gays the ability to live the American dream.

[prb]

C'mon guys. I was being specious. The weakest argument against gay marriage is that marriage has always traditionally been between a man and a woman. It's no different than offering resistance to any change by saying, "But that's not the way we have always done things." You have to be able to defend the tradition with solid arguments why the tradition is worthy.

[Superbelt]

I know. I want to just keep ramming home how closely this parallels the entire civil rights movement.

[wannabenakid247]

Originally posted by timalkin
Do child molesters choose to be so? Serial killers? Necrophiliacs?

We all have natural urges that we do not choose, but which we must control. I have the urge to bash in the heads of stupid people who piss me off everyday, but should I do it? Would society be a better place if I acted on my impulses?

If we are in favor of giving people the freedom to do whatever strikes their fancy, no matter the cost to our civilization, I want to be included.

And where do homosexuals come from anyway? If there was a gene for homosexuality, it wouldn't have survived the first generation.

How can you compare homosexuality with child molestors and such like. Those people are abusing people who are to young to be making sexual decisions and causing them immense harm. Homosexuals are having sex with adults who have the right to choose and they want to love the same sex. Where is the harm in that?

I am offended by your comments because I am Gay and I am not evil in any way shape or form.

And anyway who cares 'where they came from' the point is they are here as they always have been in a large number.

[Prince]

Benny, I agree with what you're trying to say, and appreciate your enthusiasm in trying to convey your thoughts, and obviously your heart's in the right place, but there were a few things that you said that bothered me:

It would keep them together, and off the streets. The spread of aids would go down.

Keep them together, and off the streets? I don't think a gay couple's determination to stay together is defined by whether they can marry or not. And off the streets? We're not talking about pushers or pimps here, or punkass teens. I'm was none too little appalled by this comment.

As for the spread of AIDS going down... I think we can all agree that despite of what gaybashers will have you believe, AIDS is as common among heterosexuals as it is among homosexuals. The last I heard, the HI virus can be transmitted via any sexual activity, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anal sex.

Again, I understand the point you were trying to make, but these comments that I'm emphasizing are stereotypes, and quite sickening ones at that. We're all responsible for trying to weed them out of intelligent conversation. We grew up learning these stereotypes, but our children don't have to.

[lurkette]

Originally posted by timalkin
Do child molesters choose to be so? Serial killers? Necrophiliacs?

There are a few key differences between homosexuality and child molesters, etc: homosexuality is 1. not just about sex - it's about attraction, affection, passion, etc. It's a normal romantic/sexual attraction that just happens to be directed at someone of the same sex. 2. homosexuality, like many things, is determined in part by genetics, in part by biology, and in part by experience. You could say the same thing about most traits. 3. homosexuality is a consensual relationship between two people - nobody is harmed. Serial killers kill people. Child molesters hurt small children. Necrophiliacs defile the dead. That you can even classify homosexuality with these other acts bespeaks a strikingly misguided perception of what homosexuality actually is. I am bisexual, I have a girlfriend, and I really have to take issue with an expression of love and affection between the two of us being lumped in with the depraved actions of serial killers and child molesters.

We all have natural urges that we do not choose, but which we must control. I have the urge to bash in the heads of stupid people who piss me off everyday, but should I do it? Would society be a better place if I acted on my impulses?

Again, the key difference is that if you act on your urge, someone else gets hurt. If two gay people wanna fuck or get married or whatever, nobody is harmed. And don't give me the story about "won't somebody please think of the children!?!" - there's no credible evidence that having homosexual parents is any better or worse for kids than having hetero parents.

If we are in favor of giving people the freedom to do whatever strikes their fancy, no matter the cost to our civilization, I want to be included.

Could you please detail the "cost to our civilization" of accepting homosexuality?

And where do homosexuals come from anyway? If there was a gene for homosexuality, it wouldn't have survived the first generation.

There's a lot of evidence that there are several genes that predispose people to homosexuality, and they are differentially expressed depending on the hormonal environment in the womb and depending on experiences after birth. (Just because you have a gene doesn't mean that it's active - many genes have to be turned on or off by various chemical signals produced in response to particular biological inputs produced by experiences). Say you have three brothers, all of whom have this set of genes that predispose them to homosexuality. Brother 1 has less of hormone X in the womb for various reasons and ends up decidedly gay; brother 2 has more of hormone X in the womb and ends up hetero. Brother 2 goes on to reproduce biologically and passes on the set of genes, which may or may not be expressed in the next generation but will probably be carried on. Brother 3 has an amount of hormone X that produces a "middle road" reaction - he might find a man he really likes, might decide he's bi, might never encounter a man he loves and live a decidedly hetero life.

Like I said, not a simple picture.

It makes me profoundly sad that there is so much hatred and misunderstanding directed at gay/lesbian/bi etc people. We're people - we love, hurt, have jobs, do stupid things, turn into assholes, commit crimes, want to get married, have bad parents or good parents. The only difference between me and a straight woman is that when I see another woman I might be attracted to her, and if she's compatible I might even fall in love with her. I can't really understand how such a simple thing could be the downfall of civilization as we know it. It doesn't fit into an "either/or" paradigm that's easy for people to digest, which makes it frightening for some people. I hardly think that an entire population should be punished simply for not fitting into your neat little concept of how the universe ought to work.

[mrbuck12000]

You guys are not answering my question....
Why do so many people feel that it is bad....besides the biblical christian crap that this society is wrapped around?????

Mr b

[gorilla]

Marriage is a religious matter, and religion prohibits homosexuality. So, needless of what the government says finding someone to marry two homosexuals is going to be hard. But,I think that the government has no right to tell homosexuals what they can/cannot do, its discrimination and illegal. If homosexuals can adopt a kid and raise them, why cant they get married? The law should say that anyone can get married, whether they like men or women.

[filtherton]

Some religions do recognize homosexual marriage. Ironic that those who oppose it in the name of religion are in turn attempting to infringe on the religious rights of those who have no problem with it.

[Johnny Rotten]

Working and living in San Francisco, having a gay housemate and gay co-workers and gay neighbors and gay local business owners--it gives me the benefit of seeing how boringly normal gay people actually are. They're happy, sad, talkative, quiet, artistic, scientific, brave, cowardly, thin, fat, yadda yadda. Some have "femenine" tendencies towards cleanliness and courtesy, others have "masculine" tendencies towards beer and football, male or female.

I think it's this switch of gender expectations that throws most people off, of course. You don't expect a man to want to vacuum several times a week, dust, go shopping, have good taste in clothing and interior decoration (all stereotypes, of course, it's always more subtle than that). You don't expect a woman to hoot and whistle at other girls, use lots of salty language, swagger, and chuckle. This strikes a bad chord deep inside a lot of people.

But that chord strikes not because what you're seeing is wrong. It's because you're simply not used to seeing it.

And if anything is statistically more rare than a gay person, it's two gay people getting married to each other. So it's no wonder that entire communities feel this chord struck as a group, like a church bell between their ears. It's no wonder that people recoil at the thought of two women or two men at the altar and go running to religious or political explanations of why it's Not Right.

But the answer isn't inside a religious text or a civil code book. It's inside each and every one of you. That's where the chord is striking from. It's not striking from the bully pulpit or the governor's office. That sound is just someone else's confusion and rhetoric. That sense of rightness you may feel in agreeing with their emotions is just you verifying that someone else feels just as wierd about it as you do.

But you don't get any closer to the truth.

The truth is in pictures like this.

[Xell101]

My view can be summed up easily, who are they to impose a way of living upon me?

[lurkette]

Originally posted by Xell101
My view can be summed up easily, who are they to impose a way of living upon me?

Who's imposing anything on you?