Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

S.F. Marries Gay Couples

LGBT Sam-sex marriage San Francisco Disobedience

  • Please log in to reply
339 replies to this topic

#21 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:54 PM

G1223, on Feb 13 2004, 12:37 PM, said:

BTW Hawk there are a number of people oppsed to gay-marriages are they suppose to just shut up wouldn't their rights thne be decriminated?
They're entitled to their opinions on the subject, verily. But are they entitled to interfere in any other marriage to whatever end?

It all comes back to the constitutional interpretation.

Quote

Also add in that it discriminates agains th the will of the people. That is what vote  is suppose to do.

At risk of offending, your will is not necessarily interchangeable with the will of the people.

If the people of San Francisco (as QT pointed out) voted in favour of gay civil unions, your "will of the people" argument is irrelevant, since the matter is proven.

I don't know what you want-- some sort of national referendum, maybe? --but I doubt sincerely that the "will of the people" will be served at any rate. If anything, I think the will of the people is better served by not infringing upon gay couples' rights and allowing them their unions.

Secular gay civil unions do no harm to anyone except to their sensibilities. I mean, they have secular births, secular lives, and secular deaths. Whatever religion they choose is between them and their god or gods-- and enshrined under the First Amendment. This isn't a religious issue, plain and simple. And I think the "will of the people" better served by upholding the rights of all regardless of the moral quandary instead of suppressing the rights of some to appease a moral quandary.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#22 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:56 PM

Delvo, on Feb 13 2004, 12:44 PM, said:

The concept of marriage can no longer be saved. Its meaning is wiped out. Let's just get rid of it as a government-recognized status. Seriously, not joking. It's the only possible solution left.
Meh. The concept of marriage in the civil sense can do whatever it wants. The sacrament of marriage in the religious sense still has meaning, and saves itself every day a married couple chooses to remain together.

Let's not go nuts to either the polygamous extreme or the nihilistic extreme here. That's just silly and really is completely off-topic.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#23 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:56 PM

HM - what I meant is that TO ME be it hetro/homo/lesbian/poly - marriage is between consenting commited adults and should not be legislated by any government save for perhaps being the entity that holds ( as in has the warehouseing of the documents) the contract detailing legal specifics ( medical power of attorney and so on )
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#24 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:00 PM

Godeskian, on Feb 13 2004, 05:42 PM, said:

Well Gode federal presidental elections are a seperate issue.  The laws concerning them established at the time of the first election.

""'Why does someone sitting in an office in New York get to decide what's legal in a beach house in San Fransisco"""

If it's his home a lot. If not he cannot vote in that state. Same if he wanted to vote for it.

""""and lastly, wqhat about the gay people, are their rights not being discriminated against by not being allowed the same status as their heterosexual counterparts?"""

That is for the ballot box and the courts to decide.


"""'will of the people' is a tricky thing at the best of times, especially in a country of 280 million where a 51% majority vote still means that 140,000,000 people disagree with it''''

Yes it does guess what I have been in the minority before on issues I have had to accept that vote and say at least I had my say.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#25 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:04 PM

G1223, on Feb 13 2004, 10:27 AM, said:

Well nice. basically tell the voters of the state "We lost the vote and are going to do it anyway" What is wrong about this is the voter basically is having his will defied.
The bill pretty much violates the state constitution which, like Mass., forbids ANY discrimination.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#26 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:04 PM

G1223, on Feb 13 2004, 06:58 PM, said:

""""and lastly, wqhat about the gay people, are their rights not being discriminated against by not being allowed the same status as their heterosexual counterparts?"""

That is for the ballot box and the courts to decide.
so when 140,000,001 people vote for, and 139,999,999 vote against, you're cool with the fact that these people remain discriminated against because 'the people have spoken'

is that what you're telling me here?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#27 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:05 PM

Additionally - on the religous side...

I'm wiccan. My religion doesn't say word one about marriage being solely between a man and a woman. To me having the government state that marriage is between solely a man and a woman is the government crossing over into religion on behalf of those religions that veiw marriage as solely between a man and a woman...and ther goes the seperation of church and state.

Taking away my freedom to practise my religion.

I don't get up on my soap box often but this has become a stick in my craw if you will excuse the 'Hawk ism.

If a persons religous beliefs state that marriage is between a man and a woman, thats fine, it is their right, but damn it don't shove it down my throat!  Your religion is your religion and mine is mine.

(This a general 'your' not addressed to any one in specific, unless some one makes it so )

This country was founded on the notion of religous freedom, and it seems to me that too many people see religous freedom as being only for their religion
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#28 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:12 PM

When this issue comes on the ballot here in Indiana I will being voting in support of it. But if it loeses then I will support the choice. Becasue it is a clear indication of the people's will.

California had this vote and now San Fransico is unhappy about losing.


And yes Gode if it came down to one vote then yes that is what a vote is for.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#29 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:13 PM

Shal....

Maybe that warrants mention in HM's thread. I don't want your valid points about the nature of marriage lost in a topical discussion of the events at hand.

:cool:

Edited by the 'Hawk, 13 February 2004 - 01:14 PM.

“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#30 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:19 PM

Rhea, on Feb 13 2004, 06:02 PM, said:

G1223, on Feb 13 2004, 10:27 AM, said:

Well nice. basically tell the voters of the state "We lost the vote and are going to do it anyway" What is wrong about this is the voter basically is having his will defied.
The bill pretty much violates the state constitution which, like Mass., forbids ANY discrimination.
Then pass it on to the state supreme court, and let them rule. Or have they?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#31 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:23 PM

the'Hawk, on Feb 13 2004, 11:54 AM, said:

Let's not go nuts to either the polygamous extreme or the nihilistic extreme here.
Actually, we might as well. Since anything goes, then everything must go. Let's go nuts, people. If you could define marriage however you wanted (which, if you have enough political clout, apparently is entirely possible) who or what would you marry, and how many times? Since marriage can now be redefined to mean anything we want it to be, why can't I just marry my house so that maintenance can be covered by my health insurance? :cool:

Since marriage can now be redefined to mean anything, it now means nothing. (And there's your nihilism right there, Nox.)
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#32 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:38 PM

Handmaiden07, on Feb 13 2004, 10:34 AM, said:

OTOH - the people of San Franscico may have overwhelmingly voted in favor....
NOT.  :wacko:

The Bay Area is way different from the rest of California - we didn't vote for Arnie OR Bush.  :p

And most of us in this area are supportive of the rights of gay couples because we've all seen long-term gay relationships that far outlasted the relationships of their straight friends, and the struggles they go through because their marriage isn't recognized (try raising a family when you can't file a joint return and never get any of the tax breaks, for instance).
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#33 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:42 PM

Drew, on Feb 13 2004, 01:21 PM, said:

Since marriage can now be redefined to mean anything we want it to be, why can't I just marry my house so that maintenance can be covered by my health insurance? :cool:
Your wife might object? ;)

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#34 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:43 PM

There are benifits taxwise? Then why is it called the marriage penalty?

Like it has been asked has the supream court made it's decision?

#35 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:47 PM

the'Hawk, on Feb 13 2004, 12:40 PM, said:

Drew, on Feb 13 2004, 01:21 PM, said:

Since marriage can now be redefined to mean anything we want it to be, why can't I just marry my house so that maintenance can be covered by my health insurance? :cool:
Your wife might object? ;)
I'll let her marry the van so we can have that covered, too.  :cool:  And then we'll marry the baby* off to the car and everything's covered.  :cool:

-------

*Huh? Marry the baby? But she's a minor! Yes, but if we're redefining marriage, anything goes. Besides, when she met the new baby of another couple we know, she really let loose with the drool. I think it's romance.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#36 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:50 PM

Rhea, on Feb 13 2004, 12:36 PM, said:

and the struggles they go through because their marriage isn't recognized (try raising a family when you can't file a joint return and never get any of the tax breaks, for instance).
Serious question: Why does that require a "marriage" and not just a civil union? I asked this question once before here. What does the word "marriage" do that the word "civil union" does not? Why can't "marriage" remain between one man and one woman, and invent another term for "anything goes"?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#37 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:58 PM

G1223, on Feb 13 2004, 10:37 AM, said:

BTW Hawk there are a number of people oppsed to gay-marriages are they suppose to just shut up wouldn't their rights thne be decriminated?


Also add in that it discriminates agains th the will of the people. That is what vote  is suppose to do.
Non-discrimination simply says that everyone has the same right and no one gets preferred treatment. There was a time when an African American couldn't marry a white person.  That was finally tossed out as discriminatory, and most people thought it was past time.

I think this will finally be tossed, too.

Discriminating against heterosexuals would be prohibiting THEM from marrying.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#38 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 01:59 PM

G1223, on Feb 13 2004, 10:37 AM, said:

BTW Hawk there are a number of people oppsed to gay-marriages are they suppose to just shut up wouldn't their rights thne be decriminated?


Also add in that it discriminates agains th the will of the people. That is what vote  is suppose to do.
Non-discrimination simply says that everyone has the same right and no one gets preferred treatment. There was a time when an African American couldn't marry a white person.  That was finally tossed out as discriminatory, and most people thought it was past time.

I think this will finally be tossed, too.

Discriminating against heterosexuals would be prohibiting THEM from marrying.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#39 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 02:01 PM

That works for me Drew, if it is only the sematics that is hanging this up.

If a Civil union will do the same thing and is recognized by the tax laws, medical institutions and insurance companies then why not have that for any one of consenting age?  Basically it covers the legal issues of a domestic partnership just like contracts cover legal business partnerships.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#40 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 02:04 PM

Drew, on Feb 13 2004, 11:48 AM, said:

Serious question: Why does that require a "marriage" and not just a civil union? I asked this question once before here. What does the word "marriage" do that the word "civil union" does not?
Well, if a civil union had all the rights of a marriage-- and that would include the federal level-- then I'd be willing to bet that most gays would gladly take that compromise. However, it's not really on the table, since there's not really the political will to get it through at the federal level....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Sam-sex marriage, San Francisco, Disobedience

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users