Prop 8 and Friends

[Bloodcinder]

I'd like to congratulate all of the selfish conservative straight people who managed to pass constitutional amendments in Florida and Arizona to ban what was already illegal there by statutory law: same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, the vote is still tight, approximately 52% to 48% without all votes counted, on California's Proposition 8, the ridiculous provisional constitutional amendment which will almost definitely pass and strip the right of same-sex marriage in that state.

Why is it a good idea to leave civil rights issues up to a majority vote? Who the hell thinks that's appropriate? If you do, I'm going to give you a temporarily angry "fuck you" for being so naive and contributing to the debilitating apathy and self-righteousness ruining the country and the happiness of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

It's been demonstrated in the past that leaving civil rights up to the majority is a foolish concept because, by definition, the majority is not a minority. The majority pushes for its own interests regardless of the interests of the minorities, so civil rights can only be furthered when the leaders of the majority, not the majority itself, decide to take action.

That's about all I can think of to say coherently.

[Arainach]

Why is it a good idea to leave civil rights issues up to a majority vote?It's not.

It's indeed a mixed bag. While I'm pleased with the Obama landslide and the fact that the ballot proposals I considered most threatening (CO-48 especially, SD-11 and CA-4 to a lesser extent) failed, the fact that CA-8 is apalling, and AK-1 even more so (banning adoption by unwed couples? Are you fucking kidding me?). AZ-102, and FL-2 are equally depressing but less unexpected.

I'm curious why no one's tried to fight against any of these proposals (CA's certainly not the first to pass such a ban; theirs isn't even as strict as MI's) in federal court.

[Killer_Man_]

Because rather or not they let the people vote, after all the people are the -government-. You should be happy on how close the voting is. I am rather shock by the numbers, I expected it to me more 70-90% no and 10-30% yes.

Most of the government supported the ban that was done by Bush. After all, it passed in the house. So really, you have a better shot for us to amend it to the state constitution than anything.

If I am not mistaken you want the people to govern themselves(Such as voting for the president) so why not these issues?

Though I am still shocked that no one has attempted to sued the government because of what the consitution says about life, liberty and happiness[/b]that we are all promised. I mean after all the constitution guarantees that, so really they are hindering you from being happy.

EDIT:

But Ary is right it is a mixed bag.

[Bloodcinder]

I want the states to decide the election (via electoral college), so I don't know what you're talking about.

The people are not the government. This isn't a democracy. It's a republic. The point is that the leaders we choose should decide things based on the best interest of their constituents. Prop 8 is not in the best interest of anybody's constituents.

I didn't know about the adoption ban, Ary. That's almost more sickening, and is yet another example of legislating family.

[Killer_Man_]

I want the states to decide the election (via electoral college), so I don't know what you're talking about.

Then I misread and I do apoligize

The people are not the government. This isn't a democracy. It's a republic. The point is that the leaders we choose should decide things based on the best interest of their constituents. Prop 8 is not in the best interest of anybody's constituents.

Which I forgot, because all I kept hearing is democracy this and that, I keep forgetting that the gov't is really a republic.

But really you should still be happy that the vote is so close, it could be very soon where everyone can be happy(Or unhappy) and marry whom they chose to. Especially since like I said earlier, I am rather shock on how close it seems to be.

I didn't know about the adoption ban, Ary. That's almost more sickening, and is yet another example of legislating family.

I didn't know about that either and it's rather foolish of them. Heterosexual families can 'morally, mentally and physically' mess up kids, so why not homosexuals? It's much like my view on marriage for gays, they have every right to be happy or unhappy and marry whom they please.

[Arainach]

Arkansas Initiative 1:

Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children
This measure would prohibit unmarried "sexual partner[s]" from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure specifies that the prohibition applies to both opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples.

Results: 57% Yes, 43% No

Depressing, indeed.

[Bloodcinder]

Depressing, indeed.

So now there can be even more wards of the state without a loving family! Priceless.

But really you should still be happy that the vote is so close...
Should I? Funny, I'm not.

[Gio Takahashi]

for Florida #2 The ballot was a weird read, I had to do a double take to make sure I understood correctly:


No. 2 Constitutional Amendment Article I, New Section

Florida Marriage Protection Amendment

This Amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.

YES

NO

[Bloodcinder]

"Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" (otherwise lovingly known as "California Marriage Protection Act" and Proposition 8) passed 52.5% to 47.5%.

[dinowoman]

I'm not American so I don't know all the details of these laws, but I was under the impression that in some states at least, same sex marriage was already permitted. So how can anyone pass a law that negates that when presumably there are already couples who have been legally married?

It worries me that the US is becoming increasingly hard-line in its official attitudes towards people who don't conform to the traditional social norms. Most countries are becoming more accepting and accommodating as time goes on, but the US seems to be going the other way. It seems that the ideal of liberty only applies so long as it doesn't entail behaving any differently to what the right-wing traditionalists are comfortable with.

[Bloodcinder]

I'm not American so I don't know all the details of these laws, but I was under the impression that in some states at least, same sex marriage was already permitted. So how can anyone pass a law that negates that when presumably there are already couples who have been legally married?
California's judiciary ruled that its constitution gave same-sex couples the right to marry. This new law is a constitutional amendment officially establishing the opposite. The existing marriages can't be nullified by the new law, because retroactive laws are not legal, but no new same-sex marriages will be granted once the new law goes into effect. This leaves Massachusetts as the only place with full marriage equality, although there are same-sex couples married in a plethora of states under odd conditions.

It worries me that the US is becoming increasingly hard-line in its official attitudes towards people who don't conform to the traditional social norms. Most countries are becoming more accepting and accommodating as time goes on, but the US seems to be going the other way.
Look at Canada and Great Britain. With gays marrying and joining the military, the world has ended. Oh wait, not it hasn't.

[SpaceProg]

Well, the results were pretty close. Maybe someday. When the old prudes have died off. ;)

[Bloodcinder]

Yeah, Califonia has both the highest concentration of gays of any state and the highest number of gays of any state. However, gays are still a minority.

[Seegtease]

Of course they are a minority, but don't they have friends? Or just friends who all hate them?

[Bloodcinder]

Well, statistically, blacks hate the gays, men hate the gays, and wealthy people hate the gays. The gays don't have enough friends to form a majority-of-minorities.

[chefTENGU]

"Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" (otherwise lovingly known as "California Marriage Protection Act" and Proposition 8) passed 52.5% to 47.5%.

Here's hoping the State Supreme Court UNCONSTITUTIONALS it.

[Arainach]

chef, Prop 8 was an Amendment to the Californian State Constitution.

[chefTENGU]

Amendments can still be ruled to be unconstitutional. It has happened before.

EDIT:

No wait, not entirely. A new amendment has to be made to repeal the old amendment. FUCK.

[Killer_Man_]

Here's hoping the State Supreme Court UNCONSTITUTIONALS it.

How can they, doesn't the federal gov't already outlaw same sex couples? Regardless of states right to define what is marriage?

[chefTENGU]

How can they, doesn't the federal gov't already outlaw same sex couples? Regardless of states right to define what is marriage?

Bush tried to amend the U.S. Constitution. He failed. What is or is not marriage is entirely up to the individual states.

In fact, you can argue that the Federales have done more to help same-sex couples, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas's sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

[Killer_Man_]

Bush tried to amend the U.S. Constitution. He failed. What is or is not marriage is entirely up to the individual states.

In fact, you can argue that the Federales have done more to help same-sex couples, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas's sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

So say if one same sex couple moved and got married in one state, would they be accepted everywhere even in a state that forbids it?

[Bloodcinder]

No, KM.

Chef, you're forgetting DOMA. The aforementioned Federales completely stripped away full faith and credit with regards to marriage.

The number of obstacles in the way of gay people being full citizens is nearly insurmountable. It's entirely insurmountable if all you have to work with is majority rule.

[chefTENGU]

Chef, you're forgetting DOMA. The aforementioned Federales completely stripped away full faith and credit with regards to marriage.

DOUBLE FUCK.

Goddamn DOMA.

[Bloodcinder]

Anderson Cooper on the demographics who supported Prop 8. (Video (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2008/11/07/ac.prop.8.protests.cnn).)

[SpaceProg]

DOMA was poisoned by Kefka.

Sorry, but that's what I think of every time I see it written out. Couldn't resist.

[Bloodcinder]

Jon Stewart's take. (http://www.hulu.com/watch/47991/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-tue-dec-9-2008?c=840)

[deathofcheese]

O dam. Beat down by a comedic pundit.

I respect Huckabee. Despite his insistence on a more religious American society, he's not that crazy. At least, not as crazy as some other conservatives or Republicans. But for once (seriously, it's a rare occasion) I think John Stewart has a really good point.

[Bloodcinder]

Oh, if Huckabee had gotten the Republican nomination, I was going to vote for him. He's the kind of Republican the party needs. But, of course, he's dead wrong on the reasons he opposes gay marriage, and Jon Stewart did totally own him.

[SpaceProg]

Huckabee would have been who I voted for too if he'd lasted. Oh well. You can't run a clean campaign and have a chance of winning in these dastardly times. Arrr.

[Bloodcinder]

An update: Prop 8 was upheld today by the California supreme court. (Source (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/26/prop-8-survives-calif-supremes-uphold-gay-marriage-ban/).)

The existing 18,000+ same-sex marriages there are still recognized, but no further will be allowed in the state ever unless a law is passed overturning that one.

[deathofcheese]

Ugh, that's terrible. They're probably arguing "IT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR, DAMNIT".

[chefTENGU]

Guess that means it'll have to be changed the hard way...

[Bloodcinder]

Guess that means it'll have to be changed the hard way...
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1817/ramborjf.jpg

[Gerrymander]

http://www.protectdominanthand.com/

Silly, yes. Trite, maybe.

I still laughed and nodded in agreement.

[SpaceProg]

Ugh, that's terrible. They're probably arguing "IT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR, DAMNIT".

That's exactly what they're doing/did.

[Gareth]

I still don't understand how straight guys, and straight women get to vote on shit that not only has jack shit to do with them but they can't comprehend due to their own sexual orientation. Wtfplz.

And Chef I didn't know you had a masters in law! Nice! :P

[Killer_Man_]

Because Gareth, that's how a 'democracy/republic' works. You bring an issue to the table and everyone votes.

[Arainach]

Because Gareth, that's how a 'democracy/republic' works. You bring an issue to the table and everyone votes.That's the way a democracy works; it's not at all how a republic works.

[Bloodcinder]

And Gareth is implying what is true: the majority should not get to impose upon the rights of the minorities.

[Killer_Man_]

Yes but you will never see people voting to 'change society laws/rules' by letting the 'minorities' chose it.

No matter how you slice it, it will be like that.

We once voted to see if blacks were equal and everyone voted on it.

We voted to give women voting rights. Yet it only involved women.

[Arainach]

We once voted to see if blacks were equal and everyone voted on it.No, that was done with a Constitutional Amendment. A Constitutional Amendment shoved down the throat of the southern states at gunpoint no less.

[Killer_Man_]

No, that was done with a Constitutional Amendment. A Constitutional Amendment shoved down the throat of the southern states at gunpoint no less.


No, no, I'm talking about Dr. Martin Lutheran King JR. and Woman Sufferage.

[Arainach]

No, no, I'm talking about Dr. Martin Lutheran King JR. and Woman Sufferage.I voluntarily abstain from responding to this post and continuing this argument.

[Z]

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x105/ShatteredCovenant/mlk.jpg

Roflz :D

[chefTENGU]

KM, America didn't vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was imposed by the government to protect the rights of minorities, because as was clearly evident, leaving their rights up to the will of the majority was simply retarded.

Women's suffrage also has a very long story behind it, and that wasn't put up to the will of the majority, either. Woodrow Wilson first proposed it in 1918, the House narrowly passed it, and the Senate refused to touch for a few months, then defeated it.

Only through the efforts of the National Women's Party to get anti-suffrage senators voted out of office during the 1918 midterm elections did the nineteenth amendment finally get passed and ratified in 1920.

[Z]

And his name is Martin Luther King, Jr.
And it's Women's Suffrage. (Meaning "The right or privilege of voting" rather than anything associated with suffering)

[SpaceProg]

Women's Sufferage is when you popped out of your mom's oony.

[Killer_Man_]

And his name is Martin Luther King, Jr.
And it's Women's Suffrage. (Meaning "The right or privilege of voting" rather than anything associated with suffering)

I typoed the name big deal and the suffrage part. No duh it's not about 'being hurt.'

I voluntarily abstain from responding to this post and continuing this argument.

Ary, instead of acting like that, why did you do the right thing and tell me what Chef did.

I honestly though that Congress did -vote- on both of those things.

[chefTENGU]

Technically, they did, but neither came as a result of the will of Congress or the general voting public. Both had to be pushed into law by the President.

In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't even the first attempt at getting civil rights recognized. It was based primarily on the original Civil Rights Act of 1875 that was defeated in favor of Jim Crow and Black Codes.

[Gareth]

And Gareth is implying what is true: the majority should not get to impose upon the rights of the minorities.
This.

[Bloodcinder]

Prop 8: The Web Series.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBZizKhg408&feature=PlayList&p=118E902B0074617B&index=0)

[Killer_Man_]

I watched them, just for you BC, but yet I find myself yawning or saying that's cheesy.

They should have picked a 'right' that gays and straights can relate to.

Such as the right to marriage. I only watched two of the videos. I'm just saying, they should have did a play or skit showing all the gays can marry and the non-gays can't. I'm sure it would widen some eyes to see that you are persecuting them for no reason. Even if the skit/play was cheesy, it would still send that message to people.

That's just in my eyes, not allowing people to follow religeon or refuse housing to soliders. They can't just go around and say, "We're from the Navy and we heard you are gay. So we're going to take over this house big boy."

(Yes, I pulled a Navy joke too.)

[Bloodcinder]

You, uh, you really missed it.

[Gio Takahashi]

I think the point of these videos (I watched all five episodes) is that, what would it be like if your rights were taken away. (Freedom of religion, slavery prohibition, etc). If I recall, California at one point allowed Gay marriages, and then Prop 8 was made to take that right away.

[Killer_Man_]

You, uh, you really missed it.

No, you assumed I missed the point.

I know the point is that they took away a certain right and showed you what may have happen.

But why a random right?

I think it would have been more powerful if they would have had gays could marry and straights coudl not.

[deathofcheese]

Funny. I think it's a bit of a stretch, but they've got a good message.

Also, agent #1 looks like Gio.

[Bloodcinder]

:bravo:

Okay.

[Z]

rofl - 5 edits later...

[Bloodcinder]

Yeah, took me a while to figure out exactly the manner to express my confusion and apathy.

[Z]

It was just funny seeing the Live Thread feature kick in and seeing your message blink over and over.