Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
 Hope that works out for her, she'll likely end up in court after the State sues her. Which won't accomplish anything.
|
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
The biggest way to enact change is through voting. And the people of CA have said twice how they feel about it. If they'd propose a measure to legitimize civil unions, and get behind it with all their efforts, when that passed they'd have accomplished what they are after.
|
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
The biggest way to enact change is through voting. And the people of CA have said twice how they feel about it. If they'd propose a measure to legitimize civil unions, and get behind it with all their efforts, when that passed they'd have accomplished what they are after. |
|
Originally Posted by Skippymjp
I'm willing to bet that being sued is exactly what she's aiming for. Right now, it's a small story footnoting a news site. Court action will put it right where she wants it; on the national stage
California legitimized civil unions for same-sex couples in 2003, and granted them nearly all the protections afforded to heterosexual married couples. That is not what they're after! They are after their equality as US citizens guaranteed to them under the US Constitution. That actually shouldn't be too much to ask for, but it seems to be for some reason. |
|
Originally Posted by Yosemite
I agree Mike. She has the money to play this out and get it into the spotlight and I say good on her. I think it's time our politicians stopped trying to play God and just do their job for the equity of all peoples that live, work and pay taxes. Keep all the religions out of those decisions because none of the religions are going to agree with the others anyway so it's a useless exercise.
|
|
Originally Posted by Yosemite
My understanding was that the decision was overturned due to pressure from the Mormon churches.
|
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
The Founding Fathers had a wonderful idea with "all men are created equal." It's been interpreted many different ways.
What I believe it actually meant was that we all have the same equal start when we are created: we all have the same freedom to learn, to succeed, to become whatever we can be. Not that because one has something everyone else should. If that's the case, why are there rich and poor? Sick and healthy? |
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
This wasn't a religious subject being voted on. The state of CA clearly wrote the Proposition to say it was to deny the right of marriage to same sex couples. The voters of CA approved it. Twice.
|
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
Millions of heterosexual couples aren't married and don't get the further benefits that marriage provides. I'm still not sure what exactly the LGBT groups are after, other than to legitamize their lifestyle. Which IMO shouldn't make a darn to them, marriage is just a piece of paper, right? If they have the legal benefits via civil unions, they're one step up on heterosexual couples that aren't married. |
|
Originally Posted by Skippymjp
That's actually a good question. I,however, disagree. If we all have the same equal start when we are created, why do we still have birth defects? Are some more "equal" than others from the get-go?
Actually, the religious viewpoint is the only argument against it. Even those that claim to have other reasons will fall back to religion when questioned on the issue. As for voting, that would be the end of it, in a democracy. Which, the United States is not! The USA is a Constitutional Republic, which means that the majority rules, as long as it does not violate the US Constitution. Those seeking a democracy would be well advised to be careful what they wish for. There would be no protections like a 2nd amendment, and if 51% said guns are bad, then troops would be collecting them. Apples and Oranges. If an unmarried heterosexual couple wants to be married, all they have to do is obtain the license and go do it. Yet, same sex couples are denied that ability, so how do they compare? |
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
Well, the first answer is way above my pay grade. That's for God to answer, but I don't imagine he's really up to explaining his reasoning to mere mortals.
The voters turned this amendment back, Mike. Twice. Whatever their motivations, whatever their reasons, they voted it down. |
|
Originally Posted by Krazycatlover
I am so sad because I feel compassion for people no matter what their sexual orientation is. I don't care if a same sex couple wants to get married. It does not hurt me nor does it crush my believes or values. IT does not change the values I want to teach to my son. I don't understand why people think it is ok to take their freedoms away. It amazes me that it is 2008 the united states is still practicing discrimination after all these years and putting a stamp on it in the name of religion or morality. In my opinion this country was found on freedom. I feel that we are less and less free all the time.
People are trying to force their believes on others and it is so sad. I read a forum somewhere and some said that They don't want Gay Marriage forced down their throat and not to tell them that they have to accept it. The ignorance just shocks me. Forced down their throat. To me taking that choice away from gays is forcing it down their throat. I don't get it and I never will. I just wish people would realize that it is a freedom they should have and just because it is allowed doesn't mean they have to accept it like it or do it. Gays are not asking that. They are not asking to force each church and religion to Marry them. They just want the right to be married. If one church is not willing to do it another will. |
|
Originally Posted by Skippymjp
Then, wouldn't that put the entire prospect of "created equal" above your pay grade?
As for the voting, if it is challenged as being unconstitutional, and adjudged to be so, then it will be struck down again. That's how constitutional republics work |
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
So the LGBT groups aren't trying to "force" others to accept their lifestyle?
Marriage is not a right. I don't recall it being mentioned in the Constitution. The States license marriages individually, and the State of CA has decided not to license LGBT marriages. The people voted against allowing it. Twice. End of story. |
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
I believe the Founding Fathers took on the created equal, I just gave my opinion on it.
What don't you understand about its been voted on and overturned and voted on again? The people of CA have spoken. And if they overturn it again, the people of CA have every right to submit another proposition to vote on it again. THAT'S what freedom is about. The right to continue to pursue that which makes you happy. By voting for or against such things. |
|
Originally Posted by Skippymjp
Voting to defy a category of people their civil rights is unconstitutional. Pretty self explanatory.
|
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
So the LGBT groups aren't trying to "force" others to accept their lifestyle?
Marriage is not a right. I don't recall it being mentioned in the Constitution. The States license marriages individually, and the State of CA has decided not to license LGBT marriages. The people voted against allowing it. Twice. End of story. |
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
Marriage is a civil right? Who woulda thunk it????
|
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
Marriage is a civil right? Who woulda thunk it????
|
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
Marriage is a civil right? Who woulda thunk it????
|
|
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
The voting numbers compared with this time and last time were very heartening. Maybe they should have put it on the ballot 2 years from now, instead of during a presidential election. It likely would have been struck down.
|
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
Thank you Julie, Whether we agree on the subject or not, the idea that the voters didn't want it is clear.
|
)
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
Point is, the State of CA has a law banning it. The people voted that in once. The Supreme Court of CA overturned it. Then the people voted against it again.
Preach to the voters of CA if you want it changed. Or if you want it legal or not in your state, get involved and make it happen. People can complain and cry and protest by not paying their taxes. They can threaten to burn down churches and jump off buildings, and that doesn't get anything done. |
|
Originally Posted by neetanddave
Thank you Julie, Whether we agree on the subject or not, the idea that the voters didn't want it is clear.
|
