Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Prop 8      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 OldFolkie
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Prop 8Page 1 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)
No beef here!
It's not like the world is overflowing with love, or the opportunities for love. If two people, of WHATEVER genders, wish to make a life together, then I have absolutely no problem with that. Sanctity of Marriage, my ass. Marriage is supposed to be (or should be) the bond between two people in love and wanting to build a life together. IMHO, a gay or lesbian couple is every bit is as likely, and probably much more so, to make that marriage a success than the average hetersexuals. Because some superstitious drivel supposedly written by some old greybeards wearing sheets 3000 years ago is critical of that is absolutely no reason to condemn a desire by ANYONE to create a loving bond.
 OldFolkie
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 10/19/2008 12:27:13 AM
Ocmanny, the crux of the problem here with Gay marriages has to do with the rights afforded to Judeao-Christian recognized monogamous marriages. Simply put, if you are straight and married, you have more "civil", i.e., "governmental" rights. Pensions, health care options, insurance, civil rights than a gay couple. It has nothing to do with love or the desire to me a faithful and loving couple, but with prejudices stemming from superstious religious beliefs. That is the problem. I don't whine about "government" decreeing that a Judeao-Christian marriage is "legal" and worthy of government, i.e., social and fiscal, recognition, it's the position that anything other than that narrow "Biblically" defined relationship is not worthy of equal recognition.

Once again, Mominatrix, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Everyone deserves the right to be equally miserable under the law, regardless of sexual preference!!!!
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 5
Prop 8
Posted: 10/19/2008 12:35:51 PM

Gay couples do not have the rights of inheritance, if your partner dies, unless you have a will, you are pretty much screwed. You are not able to come into the ICU should your partner be admitted to the hospital. You have no rights should your partner fall ill and be able to make treatment decisions, unless you have the durable power of attorney. These are rights that married couples have.
\

No worries... It is relatively easy for anyone--gay or unmarried--to prepare powers of attorney for legal affairs and also health care directives to make health treatment decisions. These documents vest backup powers to run your life in someone of your choosing if and when you become incapacitated by accident, illness or old age. Giving property and money to someone to inherit from you is easily accomplished by a will, but a living trust is vastly preferable for several reasons.

It's amazing how many people run around living their lives without these important documents in place, yet they have bought into the concept of planning for "just in case something happens" by buying car, health and homeowners insurance. But they would allow the delay, lack of privacy, and having a judge who is a complete stranger choose who will call the shots for them if they themselves cannot. People show a great disrespect and failed responsibility to themselves by flaking out on this common sense subject.

(If there is a ten year or more age difference, I've seen the elder of a gay couple legally adopt the younger in order for the couple to gain many legal rights.)

As to Proposition 8, it is good at least to the degree that states are allowing their citizens to decide what is and is not permissible. (Leave the ominously-growing federal government out of it!)
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 7
Prop 8
Posted: 10/20/2008 1:06:13 AM
Judge Bork (remember him--that unqualified constitutional law professor from Yale?) has written about a problem with legalizing non-traditional marriages that's almost never discussed. The constitutions of about a dozen western states pledge them to make polygamy illegal forever. Congress long ago required these states to make this pledge as a condition of admitting them to the Union.

If any of these states were to make same-sex marriage legal, how could it continue to make polygamy (or other non-traditional forms of marriage) illegal? Because there's no valid reason to favor one over the other, doing that would violate the "equal protection of the law" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Am. But the bans on polygamy in the state constitutions are perpetual--they can't be amended.

What to do? While you're making same-sex marriages legal, do the same for polygamous and incestuous ones? Or even other more exotic types? I doubt most people would think secession's a good way to solve the dilemma, but who knows?
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 10
Prop 8
Posted: 10/20/2008 3:54:51 PM
^ Yeah, the I.R.S. is being really dense about my church being legitimate. The Tax Court ruled that now I'm going to be taxed, as will my devout flock of black sheep down at the Monastery of Monetary Liquidity and Backroom Sports Book. I'll have to cut back on holding services, like the popular Angels Pole-Dancing on the Head of a Pin Night... Hosanna For Obama Stimulus Check/Soul Redemption Night... and Capsized and Baptized in The Whiskey River Jordan Night.

Maybe if Prop. 8 allows gay marriage, we will use part of the lap dance room, er, chapel... to conduct gay weddings. 3rd Thursdays of the month will be Hitch Yer Beeoch and Fabulous Half Price Appletinis Night, conducted by Rev. Mary D. Myfairy. Ample parking in the rear.

At least the flock does their tithing in cash...
 OldFolkie
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 10/20/2008 4:25:50 PM
That's not a thong!!!

They are ecclisiastically referred to as the sacred priestly vestments!
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 12
Prop 8
Posted: 10/20/2008 4:59:43 PM
Yes, the elastic in my sacred vestments is fantastic, non-static, and ecclesiastic...

My personal opinion is that gays should have the right to marriage, as love is where you find it (and sexual orientation is inherited and not chosen), and today's society needs all of the bonded family units it can get.

On the other hand, the voice of the people and not the court, should be the arbiter of whether gays may marry or not. So the fact that Prop. 8 is before the electorate (we the people) is the most important aspect to the whole issue. It's so important, it's fabulous.
 OldFolkie
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 10/20/2008 6:26:36 PM
Pete, are you kidding me?

I have trouble just keeping up with ONE, much less dealing with the logistics (and scheduling conflicts) of multiples!!

As one of the older bulls in the herd, I'm content to let the younger bulls run themselves ragged trying to service the entire herd.

"Mormonwear"? Is that like big boy Underoos? Does WalMart sell them?
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 10/20/2008 8:36:52 PM

Wait... so what exactly is wrong with polygamy?

Multiple mothers in law for starters
 Sirens Call
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 19
Prop 8
Posted: 10/20/2008 9:13:16 PM
Wait. Am I supposed to say something here?

Like, how convenient it would have been if my ex had a couple other wives? Like, ya know, They could wash his tighty whitey's?

nevermind.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 20
Prop 8
Posted: 10/20/2008 11:23:18 PM

Judge Bork (remember him--that unqualified constitutional law professor from Yale?) has written about a problem with legalizing non-traditional marriages that's almost never discussed. The constitutions of about a dozen western states pledge them to make polygamy illegal forever. Congress long ago required these states to make this pledge as a condition of admitting them to the Union.

If any of these states were to make same-sex marriage legal, how could it continue to make polygamy (or other non-traditional forms of marriage) illegal? Because there's no valid reason to favor one over the other, doing that would violate the "equal protection of the law" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Am. But the bans on polygamy in the state constitutions are perpetual--they can't be amended.


Nonsense. That narrowness in outlook is what makes him unqualified to interpret the Constitution. If he can't figure this one out then he can't reason his way out of a paper bag.

If the clauses were added with the specific intent of qualifying territories for inclusion in the Union, and the courts later find that such a requirement violates the equal protection guarantees of citizens, the clauses would be void. You can neither make a contract nor a law that runs counter to public policy, and equal protection is the fundamental premise on which all other laws rest.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 21
Prop 8
Posted: 10/20/2008 11:53:12 PM
Mominatrix,

You say there's "no slippery slope here," and that "it does not follow" that legalizing same-sex marriages paves the way for polygamous or bestial ones. But no matter how wittily you phrase it, that's nothing more than a bare assertion. You don't offer any reasons to support it, and the law suggests just the opposite is true.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. has consistently interpreted the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment to mean that every state law must have at least some "rational basis." When any state enacts a "law" that favors one group over another for no valid reason. it's not extending the equal protection of the law to everyone under its jurisdiction. More often than not, laws favors some group over another, like the laws that prevent minors from voting. And that's fine--IF there's some arguably valid reason for the discrimination.

But just what valid reason would a state have (other than the one I talked about in my other post) to keep polygamous or other non-traditional marriages illegal, once that state had legalized same-sex marriages? However immoral or unnatural anyone may believe bigamy, polygamy, incestuous or bestial marriages, etc. are, moral prejudice against these non-traditional types is not a rational basis for discriminating against them. After all, same-sex marriage is no more traditional, and tens of millions of Americans believe it also is immoral and unnatural.

How could any court, then, make a principled argument that same-sex marriage is the only non-traditional form state law should authorize? I don't think it could--especially since the Supreme Court held, a couple years ago, that protecting public morality is not a valid reason for a state to make any private sexual conduct between consenting adults illegal. Justice Scalia, dissenting, said the decision meant states could no longer prohibit any kind of private, victimless sex acts--including bestiality.

I guess you could always argue that a sheep can't knowingly consent to marriage. "If any of the flock has reason to object to this marriage, let him bleat now, or forever hold his peace!"
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 22
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 2:23:29 AM
AceofSpace,

Two of Robert Bork's most contemptible persecutors during his confirmation hearings were those distinguished intellects, Senators Arlen Specter and Joe Biden. (Sen. Biden recently demonstrated his much-ballyhooed knowledge of foreign policy by stating before millions that NATO drove Hizbollah from power in Lebanon. Unfortunately, no part of this ever happened, except in Mr. Biden's imagination--the same imagination that recently had FDR going on TV three years before he was first elected, and much longer than that before a U.S. President first went on TV.)

I've never heard Professors Tribe, Dershowitz, Sunstein, Wedgwood, Yoo, Chemerinsky, or any other leading authority question Professor Bork's knowledge of constitutional law. Presumably, the top-ranked law school in the U.S. didn't keep him around all those years teaching one of the most difficult fields of law because he can't "reason his way out of a paper bag." I don't see how you rate taking such a critical, dismissive tone toward someone of his stature. Do you think you know better? I'm reminded of people I've seen who could no more follow Justice Scalia's reasoning on a complex point than the average kindergartener could explain quantum physics in full detail. And yet they imagine they're clever because they've memorized a couple snide responses to use if his name should come up.

No one even suggested that the provisions in some state constitutions that prohibit polygamy in perpetuity, by themselves, violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They obviously don't. Statutes make polygamy illegal in every state, even the majority whose constitutions don't prohibit it. And the Supreme Court has never held that laws against polygamy violated equal protection, or any other constitutional guarantee. So there's no question that a state CAN make polygamy illegal; the question is whether certain states MUST do that.

The dilemma Judge Bork has posed would come up ONLY IF the legislature of a state whose constitution prohibits polygamy forever were to legalize same-sex marriage. If a polygamist then challenged this new law as a violation of the state constitution's equal protection guarantee, what could the state's supreme court do? State legislatures can't amend their state constitutions just by enacting statutes, any more than Congress can amend the U.S. Constitution just by passing an act. The U.S. Constitution itself spells out the procedure for amending it, and most state constitutions are modeled very closely on it.

But in effect, that's just what the state would be doing if its legislature passed a law that created a potential equal protection issue by discriminating arbitrarily against polygamy, and its supreme court then solved the problem by holding that the part of the state constitution prohibiting polygamy forever violated the part guaranteeing equal protection. Also, the Supreme Court defers to a state court's decisions interpreting that state's laws IF its decision has an "adequate and independent" basis in those laws. But a state court decision about language in the state constitution dealing with admission to the Union would not have this basis, because this language unavoidably involves the U.S.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 23
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 9:01:34 AM
Matchlessem,

I was in a cranky mood last night, but even this morning I don't have much use for a considerable intellect being used to apologize for what amounts to a fundamentally narrow political view.

I didn't say Judge Bork couldn't argue, but that's not the same as reason. Please reread Plato's Republic for a clarification on the difference between rhetoric and philosophy. I want judges who can _judge,_ not simply elaborate a position until it gets to be ridiculous.

The framers had good intentions. Those intentions deserve our utmost respect. One of their intentions was for the Constitution to be interpreted as needed during the course of its life to reflect an ever clearer understanding of the concept of individual rights and how to operate a government whose mission is to safeguard those rights.

His religious zeal for preserving not just the intention, but the literal wording of the Constitution as if it were a sacred text delivered from on High creates an orthodoxy of thought that is unproductive and out of character with a free citizenry. His inability to see it as a working document, put together for our use, is something that I find astounding. I have no idea why the school (Harvard?, Yale?) keeps him around, but considering the narrowness of his view and his encyclopedic knowledge of the words--if not their meaning--a professorship where people can escape from his influence after being exposed to his knowledge is the perfect spot for him.

Yes, he is an expert. But his bias is such that you have to weigh everything he says against his obvious political agenda. And in this case, his bias has blinded him to something so obvious that it is simply laughable.

That is why I skewered him.

Are you defending him because you respect his knowledge? Or because you share his political agenda?

Also, when you bring up Dr. Yoo, the great rationalizer for the Bush Aministration's use of torture, you call your own credibility into question. Have you no sense? The entire point of the Constitution and the Republic is to preserve the due process and equal protection rights of any individual who comes into contact with our government. Isn't it?

If that isn't the point, what is?


The dilemma Judge Bork has posed would come up ONLY IF the legislature of a state whose constitution prohibits polygamy forever were to legalize same-sex marriage. If a polygamist then challenged this new law as a violation of the state constitution's equal protection guarantee, what could the state's supreme court do? State legislatures can't amend their state constitutions just by enacting statutes, any more than Congress can amend the U.S. Constitution just by passing an act. The U.S. Constitution itself spells out the procedure for amending it, and most state constitutions are modeled very closely on it.


There is no dilemma here and both Judge Bork and you know it. The state supreme court could either hold with the state's constitution or rule that the provision is unconstititional on the basis of its violation of some other provision (such as the right to equal protection) that governs. If the state court held with the restriction, then the people who wanted to marry anyway would appeal to the Supreme Court. And as you have said, the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction. At that point it would be up to them in their wisdom to uphold the equal protection rights of those citizens. And just because they have allowed their religious and cultural biases to cloud their judgment about this issue in the past, that doesn't mean they must or will continue to do so.

There is a difference between disgust and moral indignation. Some might find the idea of altenative marriages to be disgusting, but that doesn't make it immoral.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 24
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 9:06:32 AM
Matchlessm,

There is no slippery slope with respect to incestuous or bestial marriages because neither children nor animals can give informed consent to a marriage agreement.

If we were to take a strict, Borkian, interpretation of the intent of the Framers with respect to the freedom of association, there is no constitutional basis for a restriction against either same-sex or polyamorous marriages.

Is there?
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 26
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 12:23:21 PM
AceofSpace,

Why would children necessarily be partners in incestuous marriages? A brother and sister, both adults, could knowingly consent to marry each other.

Just how far the Framers thought freedom of association extended is debatable. The First Amendment guarantees "the right of the People peaceably to assemble." But the Court expanded this right a lot (today it often protects even membership in urban gangs) in a decision from the civil rights era. A state had tried to make an NAACP chapter there reveal the names of its members. The NAACP refused, and the Court held for it. Why? Because to force it to identify its members, the Court said, would violate their 1st Am. right to associate freely.

You say the point is so obvious that Judge Bork "knows" his argument about it isn't true. Maybe you just don't understand it very well. I did my best to present his conundrum in short form, but I may have misstated or left out some fine point that makes my version less convincing than his own words. You also say I know it's not true.

I don't make points I know aren't true, and I don't assume other people do. It's hitting below the belt to impute a bad motive to someone, except in the very rare case when you have PROOF the person knows what he's saying is false. I'm not interested in that kind of discussion. But you should have no trouble finding people who make hitting below the belt standard procedure. For them, reason's just a nuisance, and people who dispute their views are less virtuous than they are. Ironically, a lot of them consider themselves "liberal."
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 27
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 2:17:10 PM
I don't make points I know aren't true, and I don't assume other people do. It's hitting below the belt to impute a bad motive to someone


Fair enough. I apologize.

I guess that it just seemed so obvious to me that I thought you and he ought to have seen it. Equal protection can lead to us having to tolerate practices that we find disgustiong. However, if no one is actually harmed, where is the foul?


Mominatrix: What Bork seeks to do as an originalist, is to end judicial activism and strengthen legislative power over the laws governing the nation.


I understand that, but his view fails to take into account what the framers intended for the courts themselves. Their role is to be a check and balance against the tyranny of the majority. As such, their power must be no less than that of the legislature.

I do agree that it is not good when a court advances any other agenda but the one it is supposed to--to determine via reason and evidence whether or not a right has been breached and, if so, what the most appropriate remedy would be to correct the breach and prevent such breaches in future.


Mominatrix: He seeks to keep the power with the people and not with a handful of people bent on asserting their opinion over those of an entire nation.


Well, when the opinion of the overwhelming majority is that it is OK to deprive a certain individual or group of their rights, it is precisely the job of the Court to put a stop to that nonsense.

The state has no business knowing who's in the NAACP. The Court held rightly there if you ask me. Does a Liberal administration have any need to know the names of members of the Young Republicans?

MSM, you make a good point about incestuous marriages among adults. They do pose a public burden due to the added risk of birth defects. Whether that is a strong enough legal argument against them remains to be seen. However, near-universal disgust over the idea is not.
 miztee1969
Joined: 6/18/2008
Msg: 28
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 2:35:32 PM
hmmm last i could recall was that GOD is LOVE not god is judeo christian inside the box only white anglo saxons need apply love and isnt this the U S OF FREAKIN A where all citizens have the RIGHT TO LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS????????
 miztee1969
Joined: 6/18/2008
Msg: 29
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 2:36:43 PM
not a darn thing if you live in colorado city or sweden
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 7:02:37 PM
[gay pride parade] "sets back their cause. I lived in NYC most of my life, & although I do support Prop 8 & the general freedom of homosexuals"

I have to agree that 2 people have the right to form a social partnership for the purpose of leading a family and when they do they ought to get all the rights and recognition afforded to them as are affirded to any other 2 people who from a social partnership for the purpose of leading a family. They should not have to go through all of the hassles of facilitating those rights as if they are between non-partners.

I also have to agree that the "let's shock people doing things that on any other day of the week would put a non-homosexual person on the Meghan's list" parade certainly goes beyond fun and humor and damages their own cause.
 KarmicGrace
Joined: 8/15/2008
Msg: 32
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 7:47:23 PM
No beef here. Two people want to be together? Fine. Have a problem with the word "marriage"? Then use civil union fercrissakes. Gays are entitled...yes, you read that right..ENTITLED to the same RIGHTS any other couple has that "connects via legal paper".

Concerning gay pride. I see it no different than Black Pride or White Pride (oops. Wait. There is no such thing as White Pride. Its racist, dontcha know). And I've been to parades where heterosexual couples get it on or women toss up their blouses to show their tits, or men fondle themselves when a pretty lady walks by. Creepoids are everywhere and aren't limited to one particular sexual orientation.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 33
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 8:12:43 PM
karmicgrace,

You may believe gays are MORALLY entitled to marry. But that's really beside the point--whether people can marry is a LEGAL question. To claim someone's legally "entitled" to something is to say they can enforce their right to it in court. And so far, the Supreme Court hasn't found any such right in the Constitution. A couple years ago, however, it DID manage to find a right to engage in sodomy. Unfortunately, it wasn't very clear about exactly what language in the Constitution grants that right. The Court can be very creative, though, and it'll probably find a right to gay marriage pretty soon.
 Miss W
Joined: 12/4/2006
Msg: 34
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 8:25:31 PM
I am personally of the belief that being gay is not a choice, it is biological, and in knowing some who have married after being together for a long time (longer than some heterosexuals, and some better romances that heterosexuals can learn from...mind you), I am voting against the proposition. Some have even adopted or given birth and make better parents than some people as they have entered their decisions out of loe. People have the right to choose who they love (sometimes it can't be helped for it is eros) and those of you who think that it includes pediophiles and bestiality, I say read all sides before making your decision.
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 35
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 8:41:02 PM

A couple years ago, however, it DID manage to find a right to engage in sodomy.


Matchlessm, you must be referring to the progressive tax code, which goes back further than a couple of years ago. The progressive tax code is social engineering at its worst, and it looks like Robin Hood will be elected very soon to accelerate once mighty America's ongoing slide into the complete and utter mediocrity resultant from benchmarking the lowest common denominator as the reigning and "fair and just" standard.

Oh, and judicial activism, the "fairness" doctrine, socialist entitlement programs, and sleaze in gay pride parades are some of the other ingredients we are adding to our recipe for national disaster.
 Miss W
Joined: 12/4/2006
Msg: 37
Prop 8
Posted: 10/21/2008 9:00:03 PM

I don't agree with this, because it hasn't been proven, & also, why cop out to this?

I would be happy to hear you out if you could provide something substantial to prove the point that it isn't a choice nor something biological other than your opinion.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Prop 8