Prop 8 over turned in CA

[SparrowHawk]

Very different than the belief in god.

Go on, keep splitting hairs, the facts stay the same. Deists acknowledge a God Head. Atheists do not.

 

[Ms Tree]

OH, now it's splitting hairs? Their beliefs are of a natural god. It is in no way related to any god of any religion. It is far closer to an atheistic POV than a theistic POV.

BTW, you still have not answered my question.

Do gays deserve equal rights or not?

 

[SparrowHawk]

OH, now it's splitting hairs? Their beliefs are of a natural god. It is in no way related to any god of any religion. It is far closer to an atheistic POV than a theistic POV.

BTW, you still have not answered my question.

Do gays deserve equal rights or not?

In some ways I think they already have equal rights. Others not so much. I don't care for the "In Your Face" approach of some.

I am also troubled with conferring or codifying Gay Marriage at the Federal level as in certain ways it confers rights not guaranteed to others. I'm perfectly content to allow this to reach the SCOTUS and whatever they decide will be fine with me. That's my honest answer. I'm conflicted by my belief in limited government and a faith that teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

This is the best most honest answer you'll get so don't press it.

 

[Ms Tree]

I am also troubled with conferring or codifying Gay Marriage at the Federal level as in certain ways it confers rights not guaranteed to others.

Please explain.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Please explain.

No other group, protected or otherwise has specific marriage rights codified. Hetero's don't as it's a societal standard. What about bestiality? Illegal in most states but what if society becomes more ah "Open Minded" do we confer marriage rights to the German Shepherd? What about the other deviant sexual practices should we become more "enlightened"?

Marriage at its core is simple tort law. Contracts 101. What makes it so politically charged is the word marriage.

The simple practical answer is to allow what's being called "Civil Unions" which is nothing more than a clarification of basic tort law regarding a contract between two or even more people. I think this is clearly permissible under current law with some very minor tweaking by each state legislature as to who has standing before the court. As it is now a gay couple can be together for 50 years, amass a small fortune only to have a family member of the decedent swoop down and have greater standing than the life partner. A Civil Union law would address those concerns as it would address the issues surrounding treatment of illness and decisions a spouse would normally be the sole arbiter of.

If the couple in question desired to have a spiritual blessing of their union they are certainly free to do so, which is as it should be. If you leave it at civil unions you address the primary concern while keeping the reality that most in society genuinely don't care or are openly hostile to the notion of gay marriage out of the equation.

 

[Ms Tree]

No other group, protected or otherwise has specific marriage rights codified. Hetero's don't as it's a societal standard. What about bestiality? Illegal in most states but what if society becomes more ah "Open Minded" do we confer marriage rights to the German Shepherd? What about the other deviant sexual practices should we become more "enlightened"?

One could take the what if to infinity. It is impractical to remove marriage from the public domain and replace it with civil union. Even though it is just a simple swap of names I think it is far to ingrained in society to expect that swap to happen. I think it is far easier to just say 'marriage is authorized between any consenting adults'. That eliminates anyone under the age of consent and anything that is not human. No one has any more rights than anyone else.

Marriage at its core is simple tort law. Contracts 101. What makes it so politically charged is the word marriage.

The simple practical answer is to allow what's being called "Civil Unions" which is nothing more than a clarification of basic tort law regarding a contract between two or even more people. I think this is clearly permissible under current law with some very minor tweaking by each state legislature as to who has standing before the court. As it is now a gay couple can be together for 50 years, amass a small fortune only to have a family member of the decedent swoop down and have greater standing than the life partner. A Civil Union law would address those concerns as it would address the issues surrounding treatment of illness and decisions a spouse would normally be the sole arbiter of.

Two issues. Firstly as I think I pointed out elsewhere in this thread to Hackman, the difference between civil unions and marriage is vast. The entire institution would have to be changed in law in all 50 states or at the federal level to make the states version invalid. Seems like a waste of time when an existing institution is already in place and only needs a minor tweak (see above).

If you are proposing the idea that both exist that violates the 14th. Separate but equal is never equal. It might be similar but it is not equal.

The only way civil unions happen IMO is if marriage is the sole domain of religion and carries no legal weight. The only institution tat has any legal weight is a civil union. That is something that I do not think religious institutions will agree to. Right now, the only thing preventing a man from getting 'married' to his horse is US law. Should marriage be relegated to religious institutions only, any religion can make up their own rules for marriage since there is no law governing how religions operate. This 'sacred' institution of marriage will be violated more times than a $1 whore.

Marriage has to stay under the domain of the state in order to be protected. The way I see it, religion can either accept the idea that gays will get married or they can loose the protection of the state and loos all control over the idea of marriage.

This is a perfect example of what happens when you allow religion to become intertwined with government.

If the couple in question desired to have a spiritual blessing of their union they are certainly free to do so, which is as it should be. If you leave it at civil unions you address the primary concern while keeping the reality that most in society genuinely don't care or are openly hostile to the notion of gay marriage out of the equation.

I personally have no issue with this but as I said above, in order for marriage to be preserved, it must remain under government protection. With out it, I can start up a religion and marry who ever I want to what ever they want. Look at Sun Moon Young (or how ever you spell his name) His mass marriages are a scam. Imagine that on a wider scale.

I think it is much more practical for religion to take a small hit with gay marriage rather than loose the institution all together.

 

[Ms Tree]

Interesting side note.

Married couples are now in the minority for the first time.

Maried couples now in the minority

Data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau shows married couples have found themselves in a new position: They're no longer the majority.

It's a trend that's been creeping along for decades, but in the 2010 Census, married couples represent 48 percent of all households. That's down from 52 percent in the last Census and, for the first time in U.S. history, puts households led by married couples as a plurality.

The causes are twofold. One cause is death. with the baby boomers, one of the spouse is dieing. Second, younger folks are delaying marriage due to financial and job concerns.

The data supports that, as the Census Bureau reported last year that opposite-sex unmarried couples living together jumped 13 percent from 2009 to 7.5 million.

And attitudes on marriage are changing, too. About 39 percent of Americans say marriage is becoming obsolete, according to a Pew Research Center study published in November, up from 28 percent in 1978.

 

[SparrowHawk]

First, a note to the naysayers: this piece is not about “homophobia.”

If you were trolling the internet doing “Google searches” with the words “Barney Frank” and “boyfriend” and you thought you discovered a homophobic jackpot on a “conservative” website, well – read on. You might actually find that you agree with my assessments here, but it won’t be what you were hoping for.

In fact, the problematic behavior with Barney Frank entails something that, according to the Congressman himself, elected officials do with their spouses “all the time” (and he’s probably right about this). This is to say that it has nothing to do with sexuality or gender.

Congressman Barney Frank, former Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, helped his then-lover Herb Moses land a nice, lucrative “government job” working at Fannie Mae back in the 1990’s. Even though it happened several years ago, this “news” raises some very legitimate questions about a “conflict of interest,” because in his position as an elected member of Congress, Mr. Frank had direct governmental oversight of Fannie Mae.

Could it be that Congressman Frank used his power and influence to extend an opportunity to his significant other, an opportunity that might not have been so easily accessible to another American?

The Congressman has already dismissed concerns about his ethics as mere “nonsense.” And it’s not the first time Mr. Frank has been discovered in a conflicted situation like this.

Back in 2009 after General Motors officially declared bankruptcy and threw itself at the financial mercy of the U.S. government, a corporate re-organization committee determined that a particular east coast G.M. parts distribution warehouse was losing a lot of revenue and needed to be shut down. It also happened that the failing parts warehouse resided in the state of Massachusetts – in the congressional district that Barney Frank represents, no less,.So, despite the wisdom of the business people who advised the closure, Congressman Frank stepped-in and “negotiated” for the unproductive warehouse to remain open, thus saving the unionized jobs of his constituents.

Seems some rights have been extended to gays. Seems that they are now free to operate with the same disrespect for Morals, Values & Ethics just like everyone else.

 

[Ms Tree]

At least you got one thing right. The point of the article had nothing to do with homosexuality. That's where it stops though. he fact the article started out with the implication that a person was searching for info on Frank and his partner and the fact that you posted this with a disclaimer that was not needed in a thread that it had nothing to do with says that your intent was not innocent.

So basically we have and unethical member of Congress (I know it's redundant) exerting influence to grant favors and protect his constituents. Huge surprise there. Kind of like 777 pointing out that Paul requested earmarks while being against earmarks....

So what does his sexuality have to do with anything other than allowing you to take yet another shot at a segment of society that you claim not to hate?

 

[SparrowHawk]

So what does his sexuality have to do with anything other than allowing you to take yet another shot at a segment of society that you claim not to hate?

I just find it amusing that our Mr Frank is openly gay, NO ONE in this PC country dare criticize his actions because of his choice of bed partners.

I G/F likes to be spanked and we both enjoy certain practices that are illegal in 26 states, so where to I go to get my "Shield"? You know the one where I'm free from oversight and criticism due to my choice of sexual activities.

Hey if 20,000 Gay and Lesbians lined up to donate $1,000 each to Ron Paul's campaign they're my new best friends.

What you and others fail to grasp is I truly, genuinely don't care what someone does in the privacy of their homes. I just don't want to hear about it anymore than anyone else wants to hear about my sordid sexual escapades.

Oh and while I'm being politically incorrect I want to know that if a child is in Special Education and is late to class is it OK to say that he was "Tardy"?????

 

[Ms Tree]

I am pretty sure that I have seen his name several times regarding his questionable ethics. So I call BS on that one as well.

Talk to the ACLU, if you can find a police or DA willing to prosecute you.

Yet you will not unequivocally say that they deserve the same rights as you and I.

Coming from you that sounds distinctly similar to when southerners say "bless his heart" just before they slam them. If you are tired of hearing about it then jump on the band wagon to grant them equal rights The sooner that happens, they sooner you do not have to her them asking for equal rights.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I am pretty sure that I have seen his name several times regarding his questionable ethics. So I call BS on that one as well.

Talk to the ACLU, if you can find a police or DA willing to prosecute you.

Yet you will not unequivocally say that they deserve the same rights as you and I.

Coming from you that sounds distinctly similar to when southerners say "bless his heart" just before they slam them. If you are tired of hearing about it then jump on the band wagon to grant them equal rights The sooner that happens, they sooner you do not have to her them asking for equal rights.

They already have equal rights, bless their hearts. I have looked high and low and I've yet to see any specific "Rights" conferred for marriage. Between ANY sex or species at the Federal Level. Right now today they don't exist.

So we should then make gays a preferred minority by granting rights conferred to no one else? None of the Amendments you continually mention specifically confer or deny rights of a sexual nature to ANYONE.

States however as they have done as a result of Roe v Wade are moving to respond to the requests of their respective residents. I don't expect SC for example to make abortion easier to have anymore than I would expect them to endorse gay marriage. VT??? A far different outcome is already implemented.

Both issues IMO will never be fully adjudicated to anyone's total satisfaction. The solution is in winning the hearts and minds of the majority to the point where even if they don't agree they can at least go along with things out of respect for those who are different.

 

[Ms Tree]

They already have equal rights, bless their hearts. I have looked high and low and I've yet to see any specific "Rights" conferred for marriage. Between ANY sex or species at the Federal Level. Right now today they don't exist.

So we should then make gays a preferred minority by granting rights conferred to no one else? None of the Amendments you continually mention specifically confer or deny rights of a sexual nature to ANYONE.

States however as they have done as a result of Roe v Wade are moving to respond to the requests of their respective residents. I don't expect SC for example to make abortion easier to have anymore than I would expect them to endorse gay marriage. VT??? A far different outcome is already implemented.

Both issues IMO will never be fully adjudicated to anyone's total satisfaction. The solution is in winning the hearts and minds of the majority to the point where even if they don't agree they can at least go along with things out of respect for those who are different.

Nice dance again. Just because there are no laws stating something is legal does not mean the laws that are prohibit something do not infringe upon the rights of the populace. The 14th amendment clearly states that any law must apply to all people. Prohibiting gays from marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause.

You keep saying that they want special rights as if that makes it true. All they want is a law that prohibits them from being married removed. They do not want special rights. They do not want a law that says gays can get married. They want a law prohibiting them from getting married removed. There is a very big difference. No special rights are being asked for. Equal rights are being asked for.

The pubic view seems to lag behind the legal views of the courts. The majority had no interest in equal rights for blacks but the courts forged ahead. Thankfully, the majority of the people were not the ones in charge.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Nice dance again. Just because there are no laws stating something is legal does not mean the laws that are prohibit something do not infringe upon the rights of the populace. The 14th amendment clearly states that any law must apply to all people. Prohibiting gays from marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause.

So me case law that supports your POV. You can't because there isn't any. Further if it was as clear as you say then it have been successfully challenged in court and be on its way to the SCOTUS. Libertarian 1 - Feel good Progressive 0

You keep saying that they want special rights as if that makes it true. All they want is a law that prohibits them from being married removed. They do not want special rights. They do not want a law that says gays can get married. They want a law prohibiting them from getting married removed. There is a very big difference. No special rights are being asked for. Equal rights are being asked for.

Show me case law at the Federal level that confers rights regarding any kind of sexual contact OF ANY KIND. Go one better, find me some case law on Marriage at the Federal Level. Again there isn't any. Ergo if you grant Gay marriage rights you are in effect discriminating against everyone who isn't gay. Libertarian 2 - Feel good Progressive 0

The pubic view seems to lag behind the legal views of the courts. The majority had no interest in equal rights for blacks but the courts forged ahead. Thankfully, the majority of the people were not the ones in charge.

Ok if your logic is correct then why did we fight one of the bloodiest wars in the history of the world 1861-65? While slavery and the abolition thereof is certainly NOT equal rights, a foundation was laid. How many states were segregated in 1955? I'm counting 10 of 48. Make it 15 of 50 in 1960. Any way you slice it the majority did not support segregation. Was there a great deal of blind neglect? Absolutely. Was legislation ultimately required? We will never really know as the Freedom Riders, Birmingham Bus boycott, Rosa Parks and many other marches and protests beginning to challenge one can not IMO say with certainty that the added legislation sped up or slowed down progress. It did surely pervert the natural progression as any government intervention does. The open question would always be for better or worse.

 

[Ms Tree]

Terry Shivo. Laws cannot be created for a specific individual. Slavery was always against the law so to speak it just took a long time to get to the point where there was a court willing to do the right thing. My understanding is that there is still an uncertainty of how the court will rule. Scalia has said in not so uncertain terms that he does not see any constitutional support for prop 8 or laws like it how ever that is not to say he will vote that way. There are 3 definite votes against and 4 definite for equal rights. The question is about the swing vote (Kennedy) and how Scalia will vote. There is angst about going before the court due to the finality of their decision. The prop 8 case may or may not go before the SCOTUS depending upon how the CA supreme court rules on standing.

Keep saying it. It still is not true. Gays ore not looking for special rights (a law saying they have the right to mary). They are seeking to have the laws that prohibit them from getting married struck down. No special rights are being sought. Equal rights under the 14th amendment are being sought. There are no gay marriage rights be sought. None. Nada. How ever there is a law(s) that prohibit gays from being married.

How is slavery and the abolition of it not equal rights?

Given the reaction of the folks in Little Rock I believe the legislation was definitely required and long over due. And much for the better in my opinion.