Of course, but what are the nuts and bolts of the union? How does biology play a role?
California: Prohibition on gay marriage
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
Of course, but what are the nuts and bolts of the union? How does biology play a role?
Note that I am giving you all three of the above. It's so simple a child could see them
Max:
No. I'm happy for the people to decide, as it happens.
My personal view is that it is silly for Hollywood stars and other people in California to start kicking up a fuss about this now, after the vote. If they felt so strongly about it, why weren't they campaigning before the vote?
Now, personally I think this should never have been put to the vote in the first place. For me, it confirms the conservativeness of many Americans. It shows that they are still prejudiced against gay people. But so be it.
The best thing to do now is to work to try to get the ban overturned, not run around complaining about it.
What percentage voted each way? Was it close?
Anyway, do you think you're telling me something I don't know? I understand perfectly well that some people have funny ideas about marriage, mostly tied to religion. I understand. I do not agree with them, but that's ok.
No. A gay person in a committed relationship presumably loves his or her life partner in exactly the same way that a heterosexual person in the same position does. Is this so really hard for you to believe?
No. I'm happy for the people to decide, as it happens.
My personal view is that it is silly for Hollywood stars and other people in California to start kicking up a fuss about this now, after the vote. If they felt so strongly about it, why weren't they campaigning before the vote?
Now, personally I think this should never have been put to the vote in the first place. For me, it confirms the conservativeness of many Americans. It shows that they are still prejudiced against gay people. But so be it.
The best thing to do now is to work to try to get the ban overturned, not run around complaining about it.
What percentage voted each way? Was it close?
Anyway, do you think you're telling me something I don't know? I understand perfectly well that some people have funny ideas about marriage, mostly tied to religion. I understand. I do not agree with them, but that's ok.
No. A gay person in a committed relationship presumably loves his or her life partner in exactly the same way that a heterosexual person in the same position does. Is this so really hard for you to believe?
Many, if not all of them, did "kick up a fuss" before the election, but it didn't get into the headlines because it wasn't sensational enough, I guess. And besides, the presidential elections seemed more important to the media for some strange reason.
Interesting. You don't think that the people of a society should have a say in how their society is operated and ruled?
Well, ...ahh, ...no, James, not "..in exactly the same way..." by any stretch of the imagination! And the voters in California, thankfully, understood the differences! And I suspect that it's going to be true in most states that put gay marriage to a vote.
Baron Max
Last edited:
One foot out of the closet
How could you know how gays ....
Oh.
Well, I'll be damned.
That would explain a good deal about the perversity of your arguments.
Would you propose that say should be arbitrary? What good of the rule of law if the heirarchy of laws can be bucked merely because it is inconvenient to one's opinion?
Baron Max said:
How could you know how gays ....
Oh.
Well, I'll be damned.
That would explain a good deal about the perversity of your arguments.
Would you propose that say should be arbitrary? What good of the rule of law if the heirarchy of laws can be bucked merely because it is inconvenient to one's opinion?
Yeah, you're right, Tiassa, no one can imagine how gays have sex. That's just too far out of the realm of human imagination, isn't it?
So, therefore, following your logic, anyone who knows how gays have sex must, by deductive, logical reasoning, have first hand experience in gay sex.
You can be funny sometimes, Tiassa, but it's damned seldom!
I think a society should have a major say in how their society operates. Sure, there things that shouldn't be "arbitrary", but then, what does that mean in terms of what the citizens want for their society? What you might call "arbitrary" might be important to others.
Baron Max
It was close. much closer than last time anyway. The first time it was put on the ballot 61% of Californians opposed homosexual marriage this time the number dropped to only 52% opposing gay marriage. Give it a few more years and I think it will eventually pass in California. Of course it will just keep going back and forth on the ballot every two years until the Supreme Court makes it legal everywhere.
Just the state court I think.
They are putting this new legislation into the Californian constitution, so the court can't say it's unconstitutional. So now I think they either have to have the amendment appealed or the US supreme court has to declare the state constitution, unconstitutional by the nations constitution. I wasn't aware though that a vote could overturn a courts decision, I thought only court rulings could overturn them.
No, there haven't been any cases related to gay marriage before the Supreme Court of the United States lately, and there is a federal law that requires the federal government recognize only one-man-one-woman arrangements as "marriage." This ban is not that big a deal, though, as marriage is handled largely by the states. Whether the feds recognize you as married or not has some ramifications, but it's the state ones that are really important to people.
What did happen was that a law was passed banning gay marriage in CA, and the Supreme Court of the State of California found that it violated the Constitution of the State of California, and struck it down. This newest measure, proposition 8, is an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California which tries to get around that problem.
Californians have gotten swept up in the whole direct-democracy movement that they've created a situation where the state Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in a referendum. Which is pretty stupid; apparently nobody's heard of the term "tyrrany of the majority."
Well, that's a helluva lot better than what the gays are attempting ....which is essentially "tyranny of the MINORITY".
And it's odd, too, ...they're doing all this just because of the way they like to have sex! Now if that ain't a ...well, an odd thing for one to identify himself with. I mean, I like to fuck sheep and goats, but I don't want to be the one thing that identifies me!
Baron Max
Well, it definitely confirms the prejudice, but I'd be careful about identifying that with a generalized "conservativeness." Sure, most traditional conservatives voted for prop 8, but the group that carried it through was the surge of black voters who came out for Obama. Blacks voted in unprecedented numbers, and voted for prop 8 by landslide 70-30 margins. Suffice it to say that you're barking up the wrong tree if those are your "conservatives," their regrettable views of homosexuality notwithstanding.
It ended up at about 52.5% for and 47.5% against. Had black people voted in their usual numbers, it would have been very close.
Have you any proof to support that assumption?
It's not an assumption: it's an assertion. And, yes, I've got plenty of proof. You would as well if you spent 30 second of quality time with Google. The Wikipedia page on Prop 8, for example, would be a good place to start.