|prop 8Page 11 of 52 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)|
Maybe. Or, there could be a fundamental conflict between socialist and conservative principles at work as well.
Well, I don't think it's quite like that. This is where people who agree with us can mislead us by creating false dichotomies. It isn't socialists vs. conservatives, with a point by point agenda to undermine or uphold American values. In this case, it's about people who see it as a matter of individual rights vs. family values. Where is the socialism in that?
In my view, the only way the issue of gay marriage is similiar to the quest for rights by those who were enslaved is that those in favor of slavery viewed slavery as being part of the natural order (pre-darwinism, wow).
Exactly. Also, slavery was a violation of human rights.
When the state removed the institution of slavery, the foundation for building an American economy, the state became the foundation for economics, which is what we see reflected in the US today with presidents who speak of economic policies which drive the nation.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Slavery was not the foundation of the American economy before the Civil War. It was the foundation of the cotton industry. Yes, that was an important industry and still is, but the economic principles of the American economy were articulated by Adam Smith in _The_Wealth_of_Nations,_ among others.
I am not at all comfortable with State being the foundation of community should they take action and change the definition of marriage.
Ideally the community should drive what winds up being codified into law. When the prevailing viewpoint shifts and we recognize that our previous understanding has been in conflict with our founding principles, we should change whatever laws need to be changed to reflect our more well-thought-out understanding.
What we have here is not the government trying to impose on the people. What we have is a conflict between two differing viewpoints as to what "marriage" means. One is more inclusive than the other. One purports to better honor the principle of equal protection and the freedom of association that are guaranteed in the fundamental contact around which our society is organized.
If we want to reserve our liberty, I really don't think that such a change could ever be allowed.
I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. If free people agree to change their viewpoint to be more inclusive, they remain free. If free people agree to allow the best legal minds they can manage to appoint evaluate the logical consistency between a legal provision and its constitutional underpinnings, they are still free regardless of the outcome.
Freedom doesn't mean doing whatever you want. It means doing whatever you want so long as it does not violate the rights of others. Can we agree on that much?
Posted: 11/5/2008 11:07:48 AM
Ace, believe me, you don't want the State ordering society and families...
K, did you intend that remark to be as patronizing as it sounded?
But you do have a point. I don't want that. That is why I voted against prop 8.
You say that your definition reflects the consensus view. At this point, it reflects the view of a very narrow majority. In time, the trend will most likely continue to shift toward a more inclusive view if the change between this and the last election about gay marriage is any indication. I don't see why it wouldn't because logic and reason eventually prevail over fear and superstition--as it did with slavery and continues to do with respect to equality for people with skin of different colors.
Still, you've won this round, so why don't we move on to a more productive discussion. What, if anything, have you learned from those who disagree with you?
What I have learned from listening to you is this: there is tremendous concern about the family as a social institution, and advocates of individual rights need to be aware of that concern and show how changes they advocate are compatible with family values.
The '60s were over a long time ago, and the destruction of "the system," while exciting, wasn't necessarily the way to win people over. Personally, I am not interested in that. But when injustices have been institutionalized, they still need to be corrected.
What I'd like to know from you is this: How could I present the idea of including gays and lesbians whose love for each other is real into society as full and equal members, rather than second-class citizens, in a way that you'd feel comfortable with?
|Economic foundation vs. Community foundation|
Posted: 11/5/2008 11:26:55 AM
When slavery was eliminated by the State, the government took up the slack. If the existing community order, the institution of marriage, is eliminated by the State, the government will take up the slack...
In what way did the government take up the slack? Were there government workers out there harvesting all that cotton?
I believe that it was the invention of the cotton gin that eliminated much of the percieved need for slavery. And after slavery was abolished, the cotton still got picked by sharecroppers, so maybe it was never really needed at all. The sharecroppers weren't much better off, that's true. But at least no one could sell their children out from under them. Talk about the government intruding into the family!
Honestly, I don't know what you mean when you say that the government took up the slack. What exactly do you mean by that? What slack are you referring to, and what actions did the government take to address it?
Posted: 11/5/2008 11:29:14 AM
It's nice to know I should not be able to remarry since I am too old to have children now...
You and me, both, Mom.
I guess the religiously correct thing for me to do if I ever meet anyone with whom I would like to share my life and dreams and fortune I will have to simply set the example to my (elementary school aged) kids that God wants me to "shack up".
If a majority of Californians put on a ballot and passed a constitutional amendment that says "people of Koozbanina descent cannot own property in the state of California," the courts would find it discriminatory and unconstitutional, no matter how many people voted for it. Since this is a CHANGE to the constitution that TAKES AWAY existing rights, we now all get to foot the bill for a lengthy and costly legal battles to once again prove that trying to limit who can marry is discriminatory. I don't see how the constitution can be amended to contradict itsself.
| Miss W|
Posted: 11/5/2008 11:55:39 AM
It's nice to know I should not be able to remarry since I am too old to have children now...
Isn't it though? Just think about how wonderful it is to have the pressure off from wondering if you will ever find anyone to marry or remarry because one is too old to have children. On the other hand, perhaps fertility tests should be mandated along with the obligatory blood test, just to be sure that everyone "qualifies". Oh the restrictions are endless and I have a head ache...along with other parts.
Posted: 11/5/2008 1:02:02 PM
|^^ I must be hopelessly ancient as well as not qualified to remarry, since I was taught that "might does not make right". I guess that is only the opinion of those not in the majority so it doesn't count...|
Posted: 11/5/2008 1:15:41 PM
|If the issue it put to the people a hundred or a thousand times, it is still discriminatory. |
No matter how many times lots and lots of people think it's OK to take away the rights of some people, it will never, ever be right.
The court is there to protect the rights of people who do not have enough votes to protect themselves. It's called "checks and balances." I learned that in school, too, but I guess they aren't teaching that anymore???
Posted: 11/5/2008 1:46:58 PM
|Don't worry --this is far from over!|
This was never a vote for 'The People" to decide...
It IS a Civil Rights issue and will be brought before the Supreme Court, at the federal level, before ya know it!
Democracy may mean 'the rule of the mob,' but it won't be a simple majority vote to overturn what the court will decide is "Right" when it is done with this one...
Slow and steady, cool rationale will define this in the end.
Hate isn't an American value.
Posted: 11/5/2008 1:53:05 PM
the alternative is to look to the judiciary or the executive branch of the government to correct the situation, since the majority has seen fit to vote for an unjust law. Again.
Posted: 11/5/2008 2:04:17 PM
So what was the alternative? How badly would you be feeling about this process had Prop 8 been defeated? Would you be as vociferous in your opinion today had your views won?
Personally, I would have felt relieved that a majority had the good sense to realize that civil rights cannot be legislated away.
The alternative would have been for the proposition to lose, for life to go on, and for the people who were frightened by the prospect of gay marriage seeing for themselves that it is harmless, inclusive, and a strengthening of the institution. It would also mean that the religious bigots who backed this measure would have to find some other scheme to try to impose their narrow worldview on others.
Reconceptualizing traditional institutions is a scary business. No doubt about it. But so is a tyrrany of the majority--which is why the Founders created a judicial branch to act as a check and balance on the legislature. The initiative process offered these zealots a loophole, and they used it. They also played upon the fears of many. Regardless of the outcome, I don't like it when our legal institutions are undermined in that way.
But we're heading toward a society in which equality is truly practiced, and I am glad for that.
Posted: 11/5/2008 2:44:14 PM
The vote, simply being as numbers, would indicate that people think that marriage is something between a woman and a man.
Proposition 8-Same Sex Marriage Ban --
25,196 of 25,429 precincts reporting (99%)
Yes 5,324,131 52% (X)
No 4,844,050 48%
Well... a little more than half... at 1:53 in the p.m, Nov. 5th, 2008.
Posted: 11/5/2008 6:00:35 PM
Ace, can you share with me some examples of how the meaning of a word was changed to ensure that Americans practice equality?
We redefined the word "Negro" to mean a full and complete person, equal to anyone else, for purposes of the national census. In the original Constitution, a Negro man was counted as 3/5ths of a person.
If we can do it at the national level for the sake of justice and equal protection under the law, we can do it at the state level.
Posted: 11/5/2008 6:06:58 PM
Genuine democracies recognize that individual religious differences must be respected and that a key role of government is to protect religious choice, even in cases where the state sanctions a particular religious faith. Democracies also:
° Prohibit incitement of religious-based violence against others.
I presume you include violence perpetrated by religiously motivated attackers as well as targets, such as when God-fearing zealots bash gays.
° Protect members of ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities.
If you include members of sexual-orientation-based minorities, I'm with you.
° Respect the right of religious organizations to freely participate and contribute to civil society — to operate faith-based schools, run hospitals and care for the aged, and create other programs and activities that benefit the society."
As long as they do so in a way that does not discriminate against vulnerable minorities or individuals, I'm with you. What a democracy cannot sanction is bigotry that violates the right to equal access to public accommodations, whether it is disguised as religion or not.
Posted: 11/5/2008 6:09:26 PM
...please see the primary definition of the word marriage in dictionary.com
Barbe, are you aware that the idea of a dictionary being prescriptive as to a word's meaning has been discredited? It has.
Dictionaries record what words mean at the time that they are written. They in no way determine what a word can come to mean in future. Common usage takes precedence. Ask any librarian, linguist, or publisher of a dictionary.
Posted: 11/5/2008 6:24:32 PM
Twenty years ago, a group of prominent homosexuals got together in Warrentown, Virginia, to map out their plan to get homosexuality accepted by the general public.
If I had to face the prospect of being beaten, being fired, being reviled, harrassed, and shunned by the general public on a daily basis, with no recourse to have my rights protected, I'd get together with the smartest and most successful peers and map out a strategy too.
What would you do in that situation? What did the African Americans do? What did women do? And what do you think your conservative leaders had to say about their meetings? I was there and I can tell you what they said. They said they were all Communists and traitors.
No, they were just people looking out for their rights, just as you feel that you are.
Where I think you have been bamboozled, K, is in believing those who feel that homosexuality is a communist plot to subvert the moral character of the nation so as to encompass our collective downfall.
What I want to ask you, K, is why you're willing to believe one flavor of propaganda but not the other. After all, both sides on this issue have motivation to lie if it will work. But let me ask you this. Of the things that Bob has been saying, what sounds like lies to you?
I cannot believe you are so naive that you would think that your coreligionists wouldn't lie to you if they felt it would advance their agenda. BTW, portraying a legitimate meeting among those whom you oppose as a sinister plot is a form of lying. Is it not?
Just consider the possibility that the people whom you've been listening to might have put a spin on their stories. Believe me, I think long and hard about who might be lying to me.
Posted: 11/5/2008 6:26:10 PM
I know there is nothing I can say to change your mind, or Ace's mind, or anyone elses minds as to the motive, but I don't agree with your positions.
If the motive isn't hatred or bigotry (which is really a big ugly word for fear), what is it?
Posted: 11/5/2008 10:15:58 PM
I believe I've heard a lot of ramming on the same ideas, over and over and over. I believe that if we are ALL civil, that a mutually acceptable agreement could be reached. I do not believe that bashing religious people of this country adds to the stability of this country.
That is reasonable. However, when you cite religion as the basis for changes to the legal system, you invite rational criticism of that basis. It is not bashing religion to say that religion doesn't always make for good policy in a country where religious freedom is the norm. Why should my religion prevail over yours or yours over mine?
Nor do I believe that changing what a word means to people--without great demonstrations of sensitivity to such people who oppose--is a gesture of good will.
Yes, you have a point there. That obviously might have had a better result. But what could someone who favors a more inclusive definition of marriage say to you that wouldn't cause you alarm?
I do view the ongoing propoganda as an attack on religious fellow citizens.
Just as those who view Prop 8 as an attack on equal rights. Since the matter is out of our hands for the moment, why don't we take a step back and see who it is that is actually attacking whom?
Bob already made it very clear that many are tired of those who believe in God--and a way to act out on this fatigue has been discovered.
Well, there's a most cheritable way of viewing it, K. Really. Do you think you could be any more dismissive? I mean really.
Sure he's tired. You'd be tired too if you were in his shoes. But if you can point out a passage to me that sounds to you like he is lying, I will back off and concede the point. Where is the lie that he is telling you?
If I wanted to impute negative motives to the people who financed Prop 8, I'd say that their long-term goal is to get women out of the workplace and back in the kitchen where God meant for them to be. So why don't we just look at what Bob is saying. What lies is he telling you?
Once you have identified the lie, then we can discuss his possible motivations for telling it. Until then, it could well be that he is simply telling the truth. And if he is, what is the response that your Christian faith calls for? Where is your Christian charity?
Posted: 11/5/2008 11:07:21 PM
|"5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. "|
By this definition of marraige the union of gays is a marraige.
The constitution has been changed prior to this. We had to take out the words that made a marraige of a white to an African American, among other non-whites, illegal. It was a breach of civil rights. Discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal in this country and no state can pass a law that makes such discrimination legal. The Supreme Court must overturn it every time.
Now we all get to pay the legal bill for having to run this back up to the Supreme Court for them to strike it down again. Religions have the right to discriminate on the basis of gender. Our government does not. There are 3 variations of marraige - man/woman; woman/woman; and man/man .... they are all 3 marraiges. A close and intimate association and union.
Posted: 11/6/2008 2:55:44 AM
I notice you don't offer any legal authority to backup your claim that "discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal in this country and no state can pass a law that makes such discrimination legal." And there is no such authority for that statement, because it's not accurate. State laws that discriminate on the basis of a person's sex are not automatically illegal. (For that matter, even a state law that discriminated on the basis of race or religion might be legal in exceptional circumstances.)
The U.S. Supreme Court applies what it calls "heightened scrutiny" in sex discrimination cases. The Court first stated this "intermediate" standard of review in a 1976 decision, Craig v. Boren. It means that a law which discriminates between groups of persons based on their sex will not violate the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment if it is "substantially related" to the achievement of "important government objectives."
Posted: 11/6/2008 4:13:20 AM
I think you mentioned earlier that the Calif. Const. distinguishes between amendments and revisions. I notice (as you predicted) that several suits were filed today alleging that the amendment Prop. 8 makes is illegal. The argument I heard one of the lawyers make was that the change is not an amendment but a revision--and therefore can't be accomplished just by a simple majority vote on an initiative.
Also, what you wrote about prejudice against the religious reminded me of something. There are several world-class cosmologists who are religious--one of them, I think an Australian professor, is both an astrophysicist and a theologian. I've read interviews with a couple of these guys, and they don't see any conflict at all between science and religion. After all, there are some things in physics that are so bizarre they're just not knowable. And as I recall, it's those things these cosmologists pointed to as evidence nature has a mysterious and supernatural side. I think that someone who believes that to be religious is necessarily to be ignorant and conventional is probably a little ignorant and conventional himself.
|Food for thought.|
Posted: 11/6/2008 10:05:06 AM
|"What "proof" do you need about homosexuality? "|
How about the fact that the socially healthiest of all animals created by God are the ones that include homosexuality in their social structure? (I'm going to let you all go search the primates research for that fact). That which is all good cannot create bad. God created homosexuality. It can be good.
Even if the bible types misinterpret the bible and insist homeosapiens are not animals, they still can't get past "that which is all good cannot make bad"
Takes human free will run riot with bigotry to create bad.
Posted: 11/6/2008 10:19:36 AM
having their institution destroyed by wagon jumpers
These words are intolerant on their face.
Posted: 11/6/2008 10:25:37 AM
|The two sides of this debate won't ever be resolved due to it's very nature being a question of opposing moralities:|
--One says it is against God to allow it.
--The other says it is against civil liberty to deny it.
It comes down to what each side believes is the correct answer for what is good, right and righteous, and that is, as always, subjective to the individual.
To simply deny someone or some group rights because their ethics are secular and therefore the foundation of their understanding of right and wrong is different from yours makes as much sense as denying a Jew a home in a Christian community.
"Luckily, this is not a situation where humans are in physical bondage, so its really not as big of a deal as the opposition tries to make it out to be.
--That would depend on the basis for one's point-of-view, now doesn't it?
I am sure the interracial couples denied marriage rights prior to the Supreme Court's 1967 (!!!!!) ruling in Loving v. Virginia would have something to say on that one.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in that case:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival....
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications
so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment,
is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry,
a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
'Bondage' is in the eye of the 'Bound.'
A couple of substitutions for the words 'sex' or 'gender' in there, and Voila! a some-day-to-be-decided ruling on same-sex marriage will have similar consequences.
It might take a some time to get the civil rights legislation right on this one:
It took a whole 84 years after Pace v. Alabama in 1883 to condemn that anti-miscegenation law to it's proper place in 1967: History.
|Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong |
Posted: 11/6/2008 10:26:05 AM
|As the NY Times reports:|
"The across-the-board sweep [of anti-same-sex-marriage initiatives in CA, FL & AZ], coupled with passage of a measure in Arkansas intended to bar gay men and lesbians from adopting children, was a stunning victory for religious conservatives, who had little else to celebrate on an Election Day that saw Senator John McCain lose and other ballot measures, like efforts to restrict abortion in South Dakota, California and Colorado, rejected."
If I had to pick between the two, I'd rather have O in the White House - marriage equality will eventually happen, regardless of how many millions the dinosaurs pour into holding it off for as long as they can (and I'm also happier if it's the Mormon church wasting its money than if it's someone spending my tax dollars) - the religious right has basically lost its sway in the larger arena, and they'll be playing down and dirty in whatever little matters they can for a while to come. In a way, it's reassuring to read the many pundits who predict that the religious right splinter of what's left of the national Republican machine will focus their attention for the next four years on trying to put full stage makeup (not just lipstick) on Palin.
FWIW, the media is predicting that New York, with Governor Paterson, and a new Democratic majority in both houses of its legislature, could soon be the first state in the country to legislatively legalize same sex marriage - http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/51833/
|Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong |
Posted: 11/6/2008 10:27:53 AM
French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person *obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices* ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and *intolerance*
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb
52 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)