Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Schwarzenegger encouraging Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8

Schwarzenegger encouraging Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8
Thread Tools
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:26 PM
 
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcali...y/1403231.html

Good! He also has the right attitude, too. He may personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he's not going to impress his will on other people. Prop 8 should be overturned.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:35 PM
 
Prop 8 amended the California Constitution. I don't believe the California Supreme Court can rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional. The CSC overturned an initiative that was a law change.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Prop 8 amended the California Constitution. I don't believe the California Supreme Court can rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional.
Correct.

But there is a debate right now whether Prop 8 "amended" or "revised" the California Constitution. That's the legal issue. Apparently under California state law, amendments can be voted on by a simple majority of the people, but a revision needs to go to the legislature first.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:53 PM
 
So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Zeeb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Manhattan, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 01:16 PM
 
If the manner in which this amendment passed was not legal, why should it stand?
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?
How would allowing same sex marriage change your opinion of the matter? You're still going to disagree with it. You're still not going allow them to join your non-profit organization. You're still not going to marry them within your non-profit organization. What exactly will force you to change?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?
Ahhhh democracy: where the Tyranny of the Majority is a Bad Thing® when it comes to your money, but a great thing when it comes to your religion.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?
98% of the state voted for Prop 8?
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:06 PM
 
If it's put up for a vote, and The People decide -- deal with it. THAT'S THE PROCESS. The PEOPLE VOTED.
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
THAT'S THE PROCESS.

When did the ability to seek redress in court, and said court's authority to adjudicate, get tossed out of the process?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
If it's put up for a vote, and The People decide -- deal with it. THAT'S THE PROCESS. The PEOPLE VOTED.
Just because a few people voted for something doesn't mean it should become law. Lots of people favored segregation, but it was unconstitutional.

However, this appears to be a legally approved constitutional amendment, so it is constitutional. I vehemently disagree with it, but I think overturning it in court would not be right. It should be put back up for a vote and overturned the proper way.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
When did the ability to seek redress in court, and said court's authority to adjudicate, get tossed out of the process?
Don't hit him with more questions just yet. I'm still waiting with Wiskedjak to find where he gets the figure that 98% of the population of California were in favor of Proposition 8.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
When did the ability to seek redress in court, and said court's authority to adjudicate, get tossed out of the process?
When it disagrees with certain religious views.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Just because a few people voted for something doesn't mean it should become law. Lots of people favored segregation, but it was unconstitutional.

However, this appears to be a legally approved constitutional amendment, so it is constitutional. I vehemently disagree with it, but I think overturning it in court would not be right. It should be put back up for a vote and overturned the proper way.
I am surprised that is only required 51% of the vote and not 75%.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:39 PM
 
Schwarzenegger has no credibility on the issue. Two bills from the legislature overturning Prop 22 (the previous marriage proposition) came to his desk, and he vetoed them, saying he did not want to subvert the clear will of the people expressed by 2000's Prop 22 vote. Now, after the will of California voters has been expressed for a second time - and with a similar margin of victory of that of Barack Obama - Schwarzengger wants the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the voters. No credibility.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
I am surprised that is only required 51% of the vote and not 75%.
I agree, that's completely busted. A simple popular majority shouldn't be enough to amend the constitution.

And, BTW, that is a conservative position to take.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Schwarzenegger has no credibility on the issue. Two bills from the legislature overturning Prop 22 (the previous marriage proposition) came to his desk, and he vetoed them, saying he did not want to subvert the clear will of the people expressed by 2000's Prop 22 vote. Now, after the will of California voters has been expressed for a second time - and with a similar margin of victory of that of Barack Obama - Schwarzengger wants the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the voters. No credibility.
I disagree. Schwarzenegger didn't think the legislature had the authority to overturn laws passed by the people, but he does think the courts have the authority to overturn any laws. It's only inconsistent if you believe there's no difference between the courts and the legislature, which any third-grader could tell you is not the case.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
I am surprised that is only required 51% of the vote and not 75%.
Isn't that interesting?

What saves states from being ruled by the tyranny of the majority is federalism. Federal law supersedes state law, so states cannot grant fewer rights under its constitution than under the federal constitution.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I agree, that's completely busted. A simple popular majority shouldn't be enough to amend the constitution.

And, BTW, that is a conservative position to take.
What is? Thinking that it should be 75%?
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
Isn't that interesting?

What saves states from being ruled by the tyranny of the majority is federalism. Federal law supersedes state law, so states cannot grant fewer rights under its constitution than under the federal constitution.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, this isn't precisely true.

With the Bill of Rights for example, these needed to be incorporated to the states under the 14th amendment by a SCOTUS decision.

As of yet, they haven't all been incorporated. The 2nd being the most obvious.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
If it's put up for a vote, and The People decide -- deal with it. THAT'S THE PROCESS. The PEOPLE VOTED.
Soooo ... just to clarify your earlier statement: 98% of the state voted for Prop 8?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I disagree. Schwarzenegger didn't think the legislature had the authority to overturn laws passed by the people, but he does think the courts have the authority to overturn any laws. It's only inconsistent if you believe there's no difference between the courts and the legislature, which any third-grader could tell you is not the case.
The state judiciary does not have the authority to overturn state constitutional amendments. Thanks for the gratuitous third-grader remark, btw.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 06:02 PM
 
Where did I say 98% of the people in Cali voted for it? I didn't. Regardless, only 2% of the population considers themselves homosexual, while 98% doesn't -- that's what I was referring to.
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I disagree. Schwarzenegger didn't think the legislature had the authority to overturn laws passed by the people, but he does think the courts have the authority to overturn any laws. It's only inconsistent if you believe there's no difference between the courts and the legislature, which any third-grader could tell you is not the case.
In Arizona, they don't. They can't repeal anything passed by the initiative/referendum process or amend "unless the amending legislation furthers the purposes of such measure and at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature, by a roll call of ayes
and nays, vote to amend such measure."
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?
And not that long ago, the majority of people thought women shouldn't be able to vote, and blacks were just property, and whites and blacks shouldn't intermarry, and on and on the list goes. Get over it, things change.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
Where did I say 98% of the people in Cali voted for it? I didn't. Regardless, only 2% of the population considers themselves homosexual, while 98% doesn't -- that's what I was referring to.
Given the results of the vote, it's clear that significantly more than 2% of the state's population wanted homosexuals to have the same rights as everybody else. Your original post was quite clearly trying to imply that 98% of the population supported Prop 8.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The state judiciary does not have the authority to overturn state constitutional amendments.
Of course it does. If something about the amendment process was improper (for example, if this is the kind of amendment that can't be passed by popular vote), who do you think is supposed to stop it?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Given the results of the vote, it's clear that significantly more than 2% of the state's population wanted homosexuals to have the same rights as everybody else. Your original post was quite clearly trying to imply that 98% of the population supported Prop 8.

I thought he was implying only 2% of the population would be directly affected by the law.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I thought he was implying only 2% of the population would be directly affected by the law.
Clearly ...

Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?
This statement is not talking about who will be affected, it's talking about who opposed Prop 8. If it's talking about people affected by Prop 8, then it's trying to suggest that the vast majority of the people who voted against Prop 8 didn't really oppose it because they weren't affected by it.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 10:20 PM
 
it's nice to see a Republican that doesn't suck up to the social conservatives. McCain used to be like that. If he still was, he'd probably have won.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:25 PM
 
Why was a vote cast if it was potentially going to be meaningless anyway? Seems like a waste of time to me...
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 01:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
Where did I say 98% of the people in Cali voted for it? I didn't. Regardless, only 2% of the population considers themselves homosexual, while 98% doesn't -- that's what I was referring to.
Yes, but your statement assumes that only homosexuals in California would have voted against Prop 8. Yet, based on the percentage of votes cast, more than 2% of the population voted against it which means there are a lot of non-homosexuals who were opposed to it. Thus, your original statement that "2% of the population didn't get their way" is wrong. Way more than 2% of the population were opposed to Prop 8 which means way more than just the homosexual citizens of California are opposed to it. Your original statement was wrong in every conceivable way so just accept it that you were wrong.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 01:59 AM
 
I posted this question in the "gays opposed to democracy" thread but never got a reply so I thought I would post it here as this thread seems to be the more active one now on this topic. (Mods, forgive the cross-posting. If you want me to delete this let me know and I will.)

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Can anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage articulate how government recognition of the legal union between two individuals of the same sex will be detrimental to society?
What will happen after recognition of same-sex marriages takes place that is so horrible and terrible for society as a whole that the government must not ever allow such a thing (recognition of same-sex marriages) to happen?


For example, we know that lowering the driving age to 12 would lead to a much higher rate of car accidents because of the physical and mental immaturity of 12-year-olds. (They are both too small and have insufficiently developed cognition to handle the rigors of driving a car.) Are there similar negative repercussions that would result from allowing same-sex couple to marry? If so, what are they?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 02:00 AM
 
I think the Mormon Church's tax exemption status should be revoked for lobbying $20 million to get Proposition 8 passed, then Prop 8 should be removed for violating the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 11:03 AM
 
It's time for another Governor recall election.

The will of the people have spoken, and he does not want to listen.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
It's time for another Governor recall election.

The will of the people have spoken, and he does not want to listen.

I tend to agree, although the will of the people in this case leads me to an even more cynical view of humanity.

My views on economics and foreign policy and all of that tend to be complicated, but my views on these social issues are quite simple: I don't give a flying **** what a politician thinks is moral, we aren't paying them to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf, especially since they have absolutely no discernible qualifications to be coming to conclusions over religious issues such as marriage. Let the church sort this out.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
It's time for another Governor recall election.

The will of the people have spoken, and he does not want to listen.
And, as is often the case, the people are wrong. Just like they were in other issues in the past, this will be overturned, and your children won't become gay, and neither will you, and you'll have to find some other silly issue to make hay over, while ignoring the really important issues this country doesn't want to address. The sky may be falling, but it isn't because of less than 5% of the population wanting to get married.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I tend to agree, although the will of the people in this case leads me to an even more cynical view of humanity.

My views on economics and foreign policy and all of that tend to be complicated, but my views on these social issues are quite simple: I don't give a flying **** what a politician thinks is moral, we aren't paying them to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf, especially since they have absolutely no discernible qualifications to be coming to conclusions over religious issues such as marriage. Let the church sort this out.

This is not a church issue, and I'm surprised you'd think so. This is an issue of the state recognizing unions between consenting adults. No one is going to force any particular church to marry people that the church doesn't want to.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
This is not a church issue, and I'm surprised you'd think so. This is an issue of the state recognizing unions between consenting adults. No one is going to force any particular church to marry people that the church doesn't want to.
Yes it is, but the most common justification for preventing these marriages involves the definition of marriage, which is a purely religious institutional thing.

Letting politicians be in charge of these sorts of moral issues is like letting a 350 pound person be in charge of exercise and diet.

.... Or something... I wish I was better at coming up with witty and timely analogies!
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yes it is, but the most common justification for preventing these marriages involves the definition of marriage, which is a purely religious institutional thing.

Letting politicians be in charge of these sorts of moral issues is like letting a 350 pound person be in charge of exercise and diet.

.... Or something... I wish I was better at coming up with witty and timely analogies!
Not letting a homosexual union being called a marriage is just a smokescreen for preventing whatever you wish to call a homosexual union. Most of the states which have banned gay marriage have also banned civil unions. No one is saying that Schwarzenneger should be in charge of this; he's just stating his opinion, like many others have. This will ultimately be decided by the courts, which will eventually recognize the wasted effort of the opposition, just like they have done in the past. Focus on the Family is now laying off staff, because they spent so much money fighting this that they're short. Just think how much real christian effort they could have shown towards the less fortunate if they had spent that money more wisely, instead of worrying about a few homosexual couples. As usual, emotions cloud judgement, and few see that, plodding along in their stupidity.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
This is not a church issue, and I'm surprised you'd think so. This is an issue of the state recognizing unions between consenting adults. No one is going to force any particular church to marry people that the church doesn't want to.
Absolutely correct. I don't think anyone who is in favor of gay marriages wants to force religions to alter their beliefs so as to approve gay marriages. Personally, I would be totally opposed to that as I think government shouldn't have any say in how religions operate. All I care about is how government recognizes its citizens and to me government that recognizes one group of citizens but not another identical group of citizens is wrong.

(And when I say identical I mean just that. To me, the government recognizing a couple's marriage is doing so in the context of their legal rights as a joined unit. Whether that unit is male/female, male/male, or female/female is irrelevant as long as the two parties are adults and willingly consent to the union. I think all three of those possible unions are identical in the context of legal rights as a joined unit.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
No one is going to force any particular church to marry people that the church doesn't want to.
They said that about the situation in the UK. Now look.

http://www.stonewallcymru.org.uk/cym...paigns/743.asp

Peers voted by 168 votes to 122 in support of regulations, part of the new Equality Act, which were introduced on 30 April. They will make it unlawful to discriminate against lesbian and gay people in the provision of services ranging from healthcare to hotel rooms.
That includes church weddings.

(As far as I'm concerned, I continue to treat gays equally - with exactly the same contempt I show for straight folks - and continue to reserve the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason I so choose (boobs not large enough, boobs too saggy, ugly face, crap hair, wearing short-sleeved shirts with ties, member of the human race, etc. etc..).)
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Sayf-Allah
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I posted this question in the "gays opposed to democracy" thread but never got a reply so I thought I would post it here as this thread seems to be the more active one now on this topic. (Mods, forgive the cross-posting. If you want me to delete this let me know and I will.)
You're an optimist if you ever think you'll get an honest answe to those questions.

"Learn to swim"
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
They said that about the situation in the UK. Now look.

http://www.stonewallcymru.org.uk/cym...paigns/743.asp
My father once got mugged, so now I know all people are muggers.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
My father once got mugged, so now I know all people are muggers.

If you want to use this analogy, the assertion Doofy was responding to was "there is no possibility you will be mugged".
     
Monique
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 01:31 PM
 
Let me see religious fanatics are against monogamy, spouses that would be able to be involved in the health care of their partners, love, respect, understanding, etc.

It is so sad that people are the most ignorant and discrimanatory against others are so called Christians.

My sister knew those 2 women who were gays are very happy to be together and they formed a very solid union.

On the other hand one ex-friend of mine told me that gays are unhappy people and he said that he wanted to prevent people like that to be unhappy; such a stupid man.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,