~sudsshane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,250
Yikes...
Supreme Court?? I need a drink..I meant the Senate! lol
Supreme Court?? I need a drink..I meant the Senate! lol
Florida bans Gay marriage
- Thread starter ~sudsshane
- Start date
Help Support :
spiceman1957
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 724
Hang in there....
I know this is upsetting for Gays who live in Florida. Remember you don't need a piece of paper to prove your love to anyone, but hang in there. I'm glad to say that in my state, Libby Dole is out (she replaced Jesse Helms) and we now have our first Democrate women governor. I think our new senior, Kay Hagen will be a advocate. It was also nice as well that our new president at least said some welcome words regarding gays in his speech. I agree with the other guys here, its going to take the Supeme Court to settle this.
I think we have come a long way since those days back in 1969 at Stone Wall, but we still have a long road ahead of us. I say lets first start by doing away with the band on gays in the military and let these folks serve!!
I know this is upsetting for Gays who live in Florida. Remember you don't need a piece of paper to prove your love to anyone, but hang in there. I'm glad to say that in my state, Libby Dole is out (she replaced Jesse Helms) and we now have our first Democrate women governor. I think our new senior, Kay Hagen will be a advocate. It was also nice as well that our new president at least said some welcome words regarding gays in his speech. I agree with the other guys here, its going to take the Supeme Court to settle this.
I think we have come a long way since those days back in 1969 at Stone Wall, but we still have a long road ahead of us. I say lets first start by doing away with the band on gays in the military and let these folks serve!!
iheartmaytag
Well-known member
I have an opinion
Hopefully my opinion is as benign as it is intended. I ask myself what exactaly does marriage between two people of the same sex hurt?
Looking at other "moral" controversy
Gambling you can argue that in excess it can lead to financial ruin. Maybe it is supporting organized crime. You can at least argue that there could be a victim.
Pornography could be argued that it victimizes women, and those least able to protect themselves.
Prostitution victimizes women, and young girls. Often backed by organized crime, or people exploiting the women. Also unsafe in spreading diseases.
Drugs, linked to alcohol, and gambling along with other addicitve activities drugs ruin individuals and families financially, and physically.
Abortion is argued a procedure between a doctor and the patient. Also argued is a ending of an innocent life. The victim could be the woman herself that was raped by her step-dad. Another victim is always the child that is aborted. I can see why this polorizes the nation.
Gay marriage--who really cares. Why do they care? Who does it victimize, who is it hurting? Is it the breakdown of family values? The couples already are living together in the house next door, they shop at the same stores, and pay the same tax base. I don't see shootings every night from drive by GayBangers. Who are they hurting?
Like I said, just my opinion, you can flame this White, Pro-Life Catholic now.
Hopefully my opinion is as benign as it is intended. I ask myself what exactaly does marriage between two people of the same sex hurt?
Looking at other "moral" controversy
Gambling you can argue that in excess it can lead to financial ruin. Maybe it is supporting organized crime. You can at least argue that there could be a victim.
Pornography could be argued that it victimizes women, and those least able to protect themselves.
Prostitution victimizes women, and young girls. Often backed by organized crime, or people exploiting the women. Also unsafe in spreading diseases.
Drugs, linked to alcohol, and gambling along with other addicitve activities drugs ruin individuals and families financially, and physically.
Abortion is argued a procedure between a doctor and the patient. Also argued is a ending of an innocent life. The victim could be the woman herself that was raped by her step-dad. Another victim is always the child that is aborted. I can see why this polorizes the nation.
Gay marriage--who really cares. Why do they care? Who does it victimize, who is it hurting? Is it the breakdown of family values? The couples already are living together in the house next door, they shop at the same stores, and pay the same tax base. I don't see shootings every night from drive by GayBangers. Who are they hurting?
Like I said, just my opinion, you can flame this White, Pro-Life Catholic now.
redcarpetdrew
Well-known member
I'll try poking a toe into the water. I hope I get it ba
The time for gay marrage WILL come. Should it be here already? Probably so. Every time this comes up for a vote the margin difference of those for and against get smaller and smaller. A few years back, it seems that the idea of approving same sex marrage even making it to the ballot at all wouldn't have been even possible. Now it's a hot topic and the close numbers seem to show that acceptance of this is growing. As frustrating as it is, this isn't going to happen overnight. It's taking time for people to realize that 'those gay people' aren't the society wrecking monsters that they are made out to be. Like it was said above, they are friends, neighbors, co-workers, family, etc. I am not homosexual myself but do not really care who is. I personally enjoy interacting with everyone here and do read the threads in this forum (even if the rants get a little heated) as it gives me perspectives I might not otherwise get which enables me to open my mind and thoughts a little more each time. We should all be capable of getting along here without too much in the way of namecalling regardless of sex, race, politics and religion.
That being said, I am Mormon, JeffG. Am I as devout as I should be? No. Am I comfortable with my relation with my God? Yes. Am I more open minded as many of my fellows? I sure hope to God I am. The one thing we ALL should try to avoid in this post election dusting off is painting with a broad brush. It seems that every time someone finds out I'm Mormon, the stereotypes begin. 'How's all your wives? Are you going to have 20 kids? Do you enjoy going door to door harrassing people?' Etc, etc, etc. Aaarrrgghh! Every time a polygamist gets ferreted out, the common assumption is 'Those Mormons used to all do that, so they must all still.' Kind of like people who hear 'homosexual' and immediately the picture of a brightly dressed, thin, weak guy with a lisp and a really bad swishy walk (as depicted in the older movies) comes to mind. Now, what am I trying to say? I'm not totally sure, myself, other than as soon as people can grow up, wise up, and get past years of being raised to think a certain way without questioning and QUESTION!, same sex marrage and other such issues will go the way of the dodo. THEN we can truly work together as one voice to deal with the issues that SHOULD be getting our attention.
I sure hope this came across the way I intended it to. I normally avoid some of these discussions as I am not the best with expressing my thoughts without tripping and falling...
RCD
The time for gay marrage WILL come. Should it be here already? Probably so. Every time this comes up for a vote the margin difference of those for and against get smaller and smaller. A few years back, it seems that the idea of approving same sex marrage even making it to the ballot at all wouldn't have been even possible. Now it's a hot topic and the close numbers seem to show that acceptance of this is growing. As frustrating as it is, this isn't going to happen overnight. It's taking time for people to realize that 'those gay people' aren't the society wrecking monsters that they are made out to be. Like it was said above, they are friends, neighbors, co-workers, family, etc. I am not homosexual myself but do not really care who is. I personally enjoy interacting with everyone here and do read the threads in this forum (even if the rants get a little heated) as it gives me perspectives I might not otherwise get which enables me to open my mind and thoughts a little more each time. We should all be capable of getting along here without too much in the way of namecalling regardless of sex, race, politics and religion.
That being said, I am Mormon, JeffG. Am I as devout as I should be? No. Am I comfortable with my relation with my God? Yes. Am I more open minded as many of my fellows? I sure hope to God I am. The one thing we ALL should try to avoid in this post election dusting off is painting with a broad brush. It seems that every time someone finds out I'm Mormon, the stereotypes begin. 'How's all your wives? Are you going to have 20 kids? Do you enjoy going door to door harrassing people?' Etc, etc, etc. Aaarrrgghh! Every time a polygamist gets ferreted out, the common assumption is 'Those Mormons used to all do that, so they must all still.' Kind of like people who hear 'homosexual' and immediately the picture of a brightly dressed, thin, weak guy with a lisp and a really bad swishy walk (as depicted in the older movies) comes to mind. Now, what am I trying to say? I'm not totally sure, myself, other than as soon as people can grow up, wise up, and get past years of being raised to think a certain way without questioning and QUESTION!, same sex marrage and other such issues will go the way of the dodo. THEN we can truly work together as one voice to deal with the issues that SHOULD be getting our attention.
I sure hope this came across the way I intended it to. I normally avoid some of these discussions as I am not the best with expressing my thoughts without tripping and falling...
RCD
Marriage is between a man and a woman. The gay community leaders fail because they try to change the definition of "marriage" and force "gay marriage" down a resistant society's throat. Why they didn't come up with something else or work on civil unions is beyond me.
How is it that a liberal state like CA can vote for Obama and against Prop 8? It must not be just the christianists, but moderate liberals, right?
How is it that a liberal state like CA can vote for Obama and against Prop 8? It must not be just the christianists, but moderate liberals, right?
Semantics then?
To have a "marriage" legally recognized, it must have a civil (or legal) element. I don't see this as a theological struggle, but an idealogical one - fair treatment under the law. I don't know anyone who realistically expects any organized religion such as the Catholic church, Lutheran, etc. to change their definition of what constitutes a marriage.
To have a "marriage" legally recognized, it must have a civil (or legal) element. I don't see this as a theological struggle, but an idealogical one - fair treatment under the law. I don't know anyone who realistically expects any organized religion such as the Catholic church, Lutheran, etc. to change their definition of what constitutes a marriage.
iheartmaytag
Well-known member
gansty
You are correct. I sincerely doubt the Holy Father will sanction same sex unions in our lifetime, or in anyone's lifetime for that matter.
My own mother and father were not sanctioned by the church because they had been married before. Did this make them less in love, or me less ligitimate? They did a civil ceremoney that was recognized by the United States and it's commonwelaths which was just fine for them. I don't see the church changing the divorce/adultery stance anytime in the near future.
But the point of this thread was individual states not allowing Marriage/Civil unions for same sex couples. It is the state where the issue lies. The state recognizes marriage in most if not all churches, however, The Church does not recognize all civil ceremonies. So I see the issue with getting the state to recognize the unions and not worry further than that.
You are correct. I sincerely doubt the Holy Father will sanction same sex unions in our lifetime, or in anyone's lifetime for that matter.
My own mother and father were not sanctioned by the church because they had been married before. Did this make them less in love, or me less ligitimate? They did a civil ceremoney that was recognized by the United States and it's commonwelaths which was just fine for them. I don't see the church changing the divorce/adultery stance anytime in the near future.
But the point of this thread was individual states not allowing Marriage/Civil unions for same sex couples. It is the state where the issue lies. The state recognizes marriage in most if not all churches, however, The Church does not recognize all civil ceremonies. So I see the issue with getting the state to recognize the unions and not worry further than that.
I heart well put
The most important thing is the right to do so, if chosen. My boyfriend grew up in deep Southern Baptist Georgia and is very resentful of religion. I was raised Catholic in IL. While I would be happy getting married in a Catholic church, he would never go for it.
The most important thing is the right to do so, if chosen. My boyfriend grew up in deep Southern Baptist Georgia and is very resentful of religion. I was raised Catholic in IL. While I would be happy getting married in a Catholic church, he would never go for it.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
This is one of those moments when several factors coalesce: First, if you want something, you'll have to get it and then keep fighting with consistent fervor to keep it. Second, don't forget that the "liberal" California we think of is constituted by several counties out of the mix. Been to the inland portion lately? Third, this is a nice example of why we have a judiciary branch; we could hypothetically pass a law to preclude all blue-eyed people from qualifying for employment in the state of California, but the court would, hopefully, spot that and overturn it from a mile away.
The purpose of government is to protect rights. It is not to limit them. The protection of rights may involve limiting those that empower some while infringing upon the rights of others, but none may argue reasonably that gay marriage infringes upon anyone.
But, lemons to lemonade--we could always opt for ultimate egalitarianism and cease honoring all civil unions in California, and likewise discontinue reciprocity toward those of other states. I mean, after all, you just need a few legal documents to ensure succession of property and power of attorney, and you're there, right? What's good for the goose...
This is one of those moments when several factors coalesce: First, if you want something, you'll have to get it and then keep fighting with consistent fervor to keep it. Second, don't forget that the "liberal" California we think of is constituted by several counties out of the mix. Been to the inland portion lately? Third, this is a nice example of why we have a judiciary branch; we could hypothetically pass a law to preclude all blue-eyed people from qualifying for employment in the state of California, but the court would, hopefully, spot that and overturn it from a mile away.
The purpose of government is to protect rights. It is not to limit them. The protection of rights may involve limiting those that empower some while infringing upon the rights of others, but none may argue reasonably that gay marriage infringes upon anyone.
But, lemons to lemonade--we could always opt for ultimate egalitarianism and cease honoring all civil unions in California, and likewise discontinue reciprocity toward those of other states. I mean, after all, you just need a few legal documents to ensure succession of property and power of attorney, and you're there, right? What's good for the goose...
It's a fear and if not a hatred,a discomfort. IMHO
We are associated with HIV, and it just scares the hell out of middle america. Our cause was seeing an awakening in the early 80's. HIV was ignored as a "Gay Cancer", thousands died remember that? Poor Rock Hudson put it on the front page. To me its the elephant in the room. Shane you live in a beautiful state, its politics are not that much different from where many of the rest of us live, sad but true. Not a professor here, what do you all really think? It's awful when you find an old address book, and so many of our friends are gone, Yeah things have changed, but they havent changed that much, as of yet. just my couple a cents alr2903
We are associated with HIV, and it just scares the hell out of middle america. Our cause was seeing an awakening in the early 80's. HIV was ignored as a "Gay Cancer", thousands died remember that? Poor Rock Hudson put it on the front page. To me its the elephant in the room. Shane you live in a beautiful state, its politics are not that much different from where many of the rest of us live, sad but true. Not a professor here, what do you all really think? It's awful when you find an old address book, and so many of our friends are gone, Yeah things have changed, but they havent changed that much, as of yet. just my couple a cents alr2903
I know that he has lots of work to do, but it is my hope that someone points out to our new president that when he was born in 1961 lots of states would not have allowed his parents to get married.
If Mr. Obama can take a few moments from time to time to point out to some of his strongest supporters that “Tolerance” and “Acceptance” are NOT the same thing. it might be a seed that could grow into something positive.
If Mr. Obama can take a few moments from time to time to point out to some of his strongest supporters that “Tolerance” and “Acceptance” are NOT the same thing. it might be a seed that could grow into something positive.
My thoughts...
At least for those who care to read them. Tony and I were talking about this earlier today while sitting in traffic. The argument against gay marriage seems to be that it is a sanctified union between a man and a woman. Where did marriage originate? The church right? Now why does this government or its people have any say in what any church should or shouldn't allow?
This issue expands far beyond equal rights as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I believe there should be equal treatment for everyone under this government. However, I believe that marriages should have no part of government at all. It's the classic seperation of church and state argument. Marriages are determined by the churches. Whether two people can claim each other on taxes as a couple is government.
If church and state were truly seperate and the government recognized unions (or some form of that) in general for everyone then it kind of takes marriage out of the picture as far as a religious issue. Maybe it's all about the wording?
Jon
At least for those who care to read them. Tony and I were talking about this earlier today while sitting in traffic. The argument against gay marriage seems to be that it is a sanctified union between a man and a woman. Where did marriage originate? The church right? Now why does this government or its people have any say in what any church should or shouldn't allow?
This issue expands far beyond equal rights as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I believe there should be equal treatment for everyone under this government. However, I believe that marriages should have no part of government at all. It's the classic seperation of church and state argument. Marriages are determined by the churches. Whether two people can claim each other on taxes as a couple is government.
If church and state were truly seperate and the government recognized unions (or some form of that) in general for everyone then it kind of takes marriage out of the picture as far as a religious issue. Maybe it's all about the wording?
Jon
pulsator-power
Well-known member
Gay Marriage
The bill in CT to change the Constitution was defeated, so Gay marriages should start taking place soon. (I forget the date.)
I support Gay Marriage.
Try the Episcopal Church!. Mine seems to be much more tolerant
on the subject. We just voted at Convention to allow priests to perform Gay marriages in CT. My priest and I voted for it, and I am proud to say we did (at the chagrin of the women sitting behind us who I thought were going to clobber us with their knitting needled when we did.) So far the CT Bishop has to deal with it though. It's a start.
EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT.
Jerry
The bill in CT to change the Constitution was defeated, so Gay marriages should start taking place soon. (I forget the date.)
I support Gay Marriage.
Try the Episcopal Church!. Mine seems to be much more tolerant
on the subject. We just voted at Convention to allow priests to perform Gay marriages in CT. My priest and I voted for it, and I am proud to say we did (at the chagrin of the women sitting behind us who I thought were going to clobber us with their knitting needled when we did.) So far the CT Bishop has to deal with it though. It's a start.
EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT.
Jerry
shawn
Well-known member
Yes Connecticut.
I am proud to live in the state of Connecticut.
I am proud to live in the state of Connecticut.
Marriage Was and Is
About transfering of property. Well once you remove "love" and the rest of the stuff.
The reason religons, then monarchs/governments began "organised" marriages, is to provide for legitimate heirs and the transfer of property to said heirs. Not to mention the fact that until rather recently a woman and all that she had or was to receive was her husband's unique property as well. Thus a "legally" married man and woman, and by extension their familes, could begin amassing property free of certian taxes and duties, and such property was free from claims of bastards and others.
Couples through-out history went off and got "married" with little regard if the law and or society would accept said marriage. Could be wrong, but what bothers some people is elevating a same sex relationship (no offence meant), to that of a hetrosexual couple.
The curious thing about court rulings in favour of "gay marriage" is the judges cite reasons along the lines of my rationale above. That the children of said unions would be placed at a lower state than those of other marriages.
As for Obama and the passing of various anti-gay marriage resolutions; again no expert on the matter, but that was the worry all along, that conservative blacks and hispanics would turn out to vote for Obama (who has many gay friends, but IIRC is against gay marriage),and also vote for the various resolutions.
California does not really have a large population of African Americans, indeed the hispanic "minority" is not only greater, but if numbers continue to trend, will be the majority of the population by the later half of this century. So it really is strange that the thing passed with their support.
L.
About transfering of property. Well once you remove "love" and the rest of the stuff.
The reason religons, then monarchs/governments began "organised" marriages, is to provide for legitimate heirs and the transfer of property to said heirs. Not to mention the fact that until rather recently a woman and all that she had or was to receive was her husband's unique property as well. Thus a "legally" married man and woman, and by extension their familes, could begin amassing property free of certian taxes and duties, and such property was free from claims of bastards and others.
Couples through-out history went off and got "married" with little regard if the law and or society would accept said marriage. Could be wrong, but what bothers some people is elevating a same sex relationship (no offence meant), to that of a hetrosexual couple.
The curious thing about court rulings in favour of "gay marriage" is the judges cite reasons along the lines of my rationale above. That the children of said unions would be placed at a lower state than those of other marriages.
As for Obama and the passing of various anti-gay marriage resolutions; again no expert on the matter, but that was the worry all along, that conservative blacks and hispanics would turn out to vote for Obama (who has many gay friends, but IIRC is against gay marriage),and also vote for the various resolutions.
California does not really have a large population of African Americans, indeed the hispanic "minority" is not only greater, but if numbers continue to trend, will be the majority of the population by the later half of this century. So it really is strange that the thing passed with their support.
L.
spiceman1957
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 724
Thats What I'm Talking About..
Gyrafoam you thinking just like me!!
J
Gyrafoam you thinking just like me!!
J
Sloppy thinking . . .
is what caused this problem. Most of the ads for Proposition 8 were about schools and teaching, which in reality had nothing to do with the question at hand - this is intellectual sloppiness at best, and outright lying at worst. I suspect that many people voted for 8 because they thought it had something to do with schools and children.
There should be a reasonable discussion of the issues in such an election, but most of the ads didn't address the question of civil rights in any way or form, and this is clearly a civil rights issue. I can only hope that the legal challenges being mounted now are successful. Taking away existing civil rights via a majority rules vote is something that to my knowledge is unprecedented here in the US in the last hundred years.
Imagine if such a vote on "separate but equal" civil rights had been taken in the deep south forty years ago, and the results had been enforced. No doubt we would have seen the continuation of "coloreds only" drinking fountains and "Negro nights" at movie theatres, not to mention segregated schools. To allow gay people to have domestic partnerships but to reserve marriage for only straight people is clearly an attempt to create a separate but equal condition, and should be thoroughly discredited.
is what caused this problem. Most of the ads for Proposition 8 were about schools and teaching, which in reality had nothing to do with the question at hand - this is intellectual sloppiness at best, and outright lying at worst. I suspect that many people voted for 8 because they thought it had something to do with schools and children.
There should be a reasonable discussion of the issues in such an election, but most of the ads didn't address the question of civil rights in any way or form, and this is clearly a civil rights issue. I can only hope that the legal challenges being mounted now are successful. Taking away existing civil rights via a majority rules vote is something that to my knowledge is unprecedented here in the US in the last hundred years.
Imagine if such a vote on "separate but equal" civil rights had been taken in the deep south forty years ago, and the results had been enforced. No doubt we would have seen the continuation of "coloreds only" drinking fountains and "Negro nights" at movie theatres, not to mention segregated schools. To allow gay people to have domestic partnerships but to reserve marriage for only straight people is clearly an attempt to create a separate but equal condition, and should be thoroughly discredited.
