Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
California to vote on Same Sex Marriage
Topic Started: Jul 19 2008, 08:45 PM (2,078 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Opponents of Prop 8 tried to have it removed from the ballot-- California Supreme Court rejected their motion.

Quote:
 
"Californians do not want their Constitution to single out people to be treated differently," said the statement from Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Marriage Equality and the American Civil Liberties Union. "We are confident they will vote no in November to make sure everyone is treated equally under the law."


If they were so confident that voters will reject the proposition, why did they try to have it removed from the democratic process? :popcorn:

story here
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
It's only a matter of time.

This step is not important.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The California Supreme Court said that denying marriage to same-sex couples is not constitutional. Of course it will be if it is written into the state's constitution. When the Supreme Court does what the California court did, none of these platitudes about "the democratic process" are going to help you. So enjoy your glee about people's rights being taken away while you can.

And on a personal note, haven't you been divorced? I guess there's such a thing as "sanctity of marriage" until you decide you don't like the one you have and would rather have another. Whatever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
In other words Daniel, what you and Kenny both are saying is that in a government of the people, by the people, what the people want doesn't matter to you, and you will support ramming the decisions of an activist court down the peoples' throat, to hell with the Constitution.

You are an ignorant twit, Daniel. You refer to the rights of the people as "platitudes', and mock the "democratic process". All you care about is getting what you want.

It's people like you that make me that much more strongly against gay marriage.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 20 2008, 01:20 AM
In other words Daniel, what you and Kenny both are saying is that in a government of the people, by the people, what the people want doesn't matter to you, and you will support ramming the decisions of an activist court down the peoples' throat, to hell with the Constitution.

[size=5]You are an ignorant twit, Daniel.[/size] You refer to the rights of the people as "platitudes', and mock the "democratic process". All you care about is getting what you want.

It's people like you that make me that much more strongly against gay marriage.

(Just marking the start of personal attack on this thread. Carry on.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Mark it all you want. You're an ignorant twit too.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Lar it's only a matter of time.

More young people see this as an equal rights issue.
More old people see it as a morality issue.
Old people are dying off and being replaced.

It's only a matter of time the majority of voters assure equality.

I respect democracy.
I'm just a forward-thinking kind of guy instead of a backward-thinking one.

What happens this Nov doesn't matter.
It's only a matter of time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Axtremus
Jul 20 2008, 12:42 AM
(Just marking the start of personal attack on this thread. Carry on.)

Quote:
 
[size=7]And on a personal note, haven't you been divorced?[/size]


Perhaps, Ax. But, I, for one would have taken that as an ad hominem.

Carry on.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Maybe, maybe not.

Daniel doesn't respect democracy though. He would be just fine having it forced on people who don't want it. I happen to think that democracy and the Constitution are more important than a minority issue.

And I also think you may find that what you want to see happen isn't "forward thinking" at all. You might find that these youth you are depending on to change things into your favor won't be as accepting of it as you think. That said, if it becomes acceptable because the majority of citizens are in favor of it, then that's fine. It's the pushing your agenda on people who don't want it pushed on them that fries my toast.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 19 2008, 09:52 PM
I happen to think that democracy and the Constitution are more important than a minority issue.

Huh?
A "minority issue"? :doh:

Blacks are a minority so let's bring back slavery.

If they want equality we don't have to give it to them because "democracy and the Constitution are more important than a minority issue.". Right?

Good night.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Don't try to compare homosexuality with race. You don't even begin to qualify at that level.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
Jul 20 2008, 01:48 AM
Axtremus
Jul 20 2008, 12:42 AM
(Just marking the start of personal attack on this thread. Carry on.)

Quote:
 
[size=7]And on a personal note, haven't you been divorced?[/size]


Perhaps, Ax. But, I, for one would have taken that as an ad hominem.

Carry on.

Tell me if you see the difference:

Scenario A
 

Person A: Smoking is bad.
Person B: Aren't you a smoker?


vs.

Scenario B
 

Person A: [whatever]
Person B: You are an ignorant twit!


I can grant you that Scenario A shows "ad hominem," but it seems quite clear to me that Scenario B shows a "personal attack" while Scenario A does not. Do you agree?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
No. Daniel didn't ask the question because he wanted information - he asked the question because he wanted to attack IT.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 20 2008, 02:19 AM
No. Daniel didn't ask the question because he wanted information - he asked the question because he wanted to attack IT.

For all I know, Daniel could be gunning to call IT a hypocrite, speculating that IT would base his argument on "sanctity of marriage." If you're preaching for X but acted against X, being called a hypocrite on issue X is an apt characterization. Besides, Daniel has yet to call IT a hypocrite. If/when he does, we can further argue this point.

Calling some one an "ignorant twit" without qualification is quite clearly a "personal attack."

Compare and contrast, again:

Scenario A
 

Person A (one who is a smoker): Smoking is bad.
Person B (one who knows Person A to be a smoker): Aren't you a smoker?


vs.

Scenario B
 

Person A: [whatever]
Person B: You're an ignorant twit!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
your 'scenario A' is a false premise. So is B. Your attempt to analyze this to death is typical of your twitness. It's really quite simple, so easy even you should be able to follow it - IT starts a thread in which Daniel does not like the direction of the subject matter, so he tries to take an indirect swipe at IT in order to smear him - a personal attack. The fact that you don't get that is beside the point.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
I also disagree with Ax's Scenario A, which is terribly faulty.

Firstly, Daniel was the one who introduced "sanctity of marriage" into what had been a posting about "same sex marriage", and then introduced "divorce" to point out what he presumed was IT's inconsistent logic. However, "same sex marriage" ≠ "divorce".

Secondly, having Person A, a smoker, saying "smoking is bad" is not the equivalent of IT, who is NOT in a same sex marriage, saying "same sex marriage is bad".

So, let's modify Scenario A into something more applicable to Daniel's comment:

Person A: Smoking is bad.
Person B: Weren't you an alcoholic? (since, according to Person B, smoking = substance abuse = alcoholism)
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Daniel
Jul 19 2008, 09:58 PM
The California Supreme Court said that denying marriage to same-sex couples is not constitutional.  Of course it will be if it is written into the state's constitution.  When the Supreme Court does what the California court did, none of these platitudes about "the democratic process" are going to help you.  So enjoy your glee about people's rights being taken away while you can.

No glee, Daniel, just looking at the democratic process in action. Do you have a problem with democracy? Would you rather have judicial activism and authoritarian government action as the rule of law? I suspect that we all -- not just you as a homosexual -- have considerably better odds of retaining our freedoms under a democracy than under authoritarianism.

You seem to think that authoritarianism and judicial activism is better for you, but the sword cuts both ways. Of course, you can only look at my view as homophobic or some other nonsense, and that I am somehow your enemy in this matter -- hence your constant vitriolic personal attacks. There is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise, but that is your blindness, not mine.
Quote:
 

And on a personal note, haven't you been divorced?  I guess there's such a thing as "sanctity of marriage" until you decide you don't like the one you have and would rather have another.  Whatever.

You know nothing about the circumstances of my life's history, yet you continue to make personal attacks. Why is that, Daniel? Your bitterness is sad. Really.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jul 19 2008, 10:42 PM
Larry
Jul 20 2008, 01:20 AM
In other words Daniel, what you and Kenny both are saying is that in a government of the people, by the people, what the people want doesn't matter to you, and you will support ramming the decisions of an activist court down the peoples' throat, to hell with the Constitution.

[size=5]You are an ignorant twit, Daniel.[/size] You refer to the rights of the people as "platitudes', and mock the "democratic process". All you care about is getting what you want.

It's people like you that make me that much more strongly against gay marriage.

(Just marking the start of personal attack on this thread. Carry on.)

You missed Daniel's personal attack on me, Ax. Why is that Ax?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
IT's an alcoholic?

I"M SO CONFUSED!


:D
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
The ultimate recourse in a democracy is to amend the Constitution.

I may not like the result ... I may be utterly opposed to it ... but, as long as it's presented honestly, the people of California deserve the right to make a choice about what the law of the land in California should be.

Sorry, Daniel. As much as I agree with the goal, I'm a process person, and you're wrong on this one.

I hope that Kenny's right, and that it's just a matter of time (maybe a few decades, but time nonetheless). Unfortunately, I don't think many of us will be around to see it.

Maybe Riley can send us a message.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
And on a personal note, haven't you been divorced? I guess there's such a thing as "sanctity of marriage" until you decide you don't like the one you have and would rather have another. Whatever.


I've never been divorced and have been married for 28 years this fall. lb has been married a good bit longer than I.

May we have your permission to use the sanctitity of marriage, juxtaposed against the known gay promiscuity argument, within this discussion?

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jul 19 2008, 11:24 PM
Daniel
Jul 19 2008, 09:58 PM
The California Supreme Court said that denying marriage to same-sex couples is not constitutional.  Of course it will be if it is written into the state's constitution.  When the Supreme Court does what the California court did, none of these platitudes about "the democratic process" are going to help you.  So enjoy your glee about people's rights being taken away while you can.

No glee, Daniel, just looking at the democratic process in action. Do you have a problem with democracy? Would you rather have judicial activism and authoritarian government action as the rule of law? I suspect that we all -- not just you as a homosexual -- have considerably better odds of retaining our freedoms under a democracy than under authoritarianism.

You seem to think that authoritarianism and judicial activism is better for you, but the sword cuts both ways. Of course, you can only look at my view as homophobic or some other nonsense, and that I am somehow your enemy in this matter -- hence your constant vitriolic personal attacks. There is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise, but that is your blindness, not mine.
Quote:
 

And on a personal note, haven't you been divorced?  I guess there's such a thing as "sanctity of marriage" until you decide you don't like the one you have and would rather have another.  Whatever.

You know nothing about the circumstances of my life's history, yet you continue to make personal attacks. Why is that, Daniel? Your bitterness is sad. Really.

Your opinions on this subject to me are a total joke. First, you insist based on *religious* grounds that homosexuality is a *disorder*. The fact that establishment psychiatry has not considered it one in going on 40 years is no matter to you, because it is not what you want to hear. Second, you continuously conflate your *religious* view that homosexuality is a disorder with your desires about what the law should or should not be on same-sex marriage. You, like many "religious" people seem to fail to grasp that your religious views are between you and God. One is under no obligation whatsoever to live according to your religious views in this country. And when the fact that your religious views inform your view of the issue of same-sex marriage is pointed out, you fall back on bogus arguments about how homosexuality and by extension same-sex marriage are not "natural." So what are we left with? We are left with the implications that homosexuality is a disorder and homosexuality is unnatural. I do not consider those views to be consonant with reality. I consider them to be ignorant.

And yes, I consider it ironic that someone who feels free to have as many marriages as he choses, would start a thread about taking away the right to marry which same-sex couples enjoy in California.

And finally, you do not seem to recognize that it is only state constitutions which can be amended by majority vote. State constitutions must comply with the US Constitution. Your "side" has shown no willingness to enact a national civil union law. Your "side" has fought such laws in every state. I predict that the issue of same-sex marriage will end up in front of the Supreme Court sooner or later. We'll see what happens then.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
In front of this Supreme Court? You'd better hope not. This Court is hopelessly conservative for about three more decades.

That's one of the huge mistakes left-wing activists make these days. They don't play the hand they're dealt. They bring cases to SCOTUS that they should never bring there ... because they're going to get the wrong result, and they should damn well know it. Lick you wounds, bide your time, and bring the case when you have a better chance of winning. Don't lock in a bad result.

As far as IT goes ... I've been around here a lot longer than you have, and I've jousted with IT as much as anyone ... if someone has mentioned publicly that IT has been divorced, I've never noticed it. I think he comes by his crazy views honestly.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Jul 20 2008, 03:17 AM
The ultimate recourse in a democracy is to amend the Constitution.

I may not like the result ... I may be utterly opposed to it ... but, as long as it's presented honestly, the people of California deserve the right to make a choice about what the law of the land in California should be.

Sorry, Daniel.  As much as I agree with the goal, I'm a process person, and you're wrong on this one. 

I hope that Kenny's right, and that it's just a matter of time (maybe a few decades, but time nonetheless).  Unfortunately, I don't think many of us will be around to see it.

Maybe Riley can send us a message.

The Supreme Court overturned homosexual sodomy laws in 2003. The case involved a Texas law, if I remember correctly.

Voting on whether someone should have a "right" is untenable. If 51% of voters in California want homosexual sodomy to be illegal, that's OK?

The Supreme Court has gone out of its way to say that the Texas case not apply to same-sex marriage, but this does not mean that the issue will not end up there.

So be a "process person." I do not think that my opportunity to share in the same rights and responsibilities under the law is something that one have the moral right to vote for or against.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Jul 20 2008, 03:59 AM
In front of this Supreme Court?  You'd better hope not.  This Court is hopelessly conservative for about three more decades.

That's one of the huge mistakes left-wing activists make these days.  They don't play the hand they're dealt.  They bring cases to SCOTUS that they should never bring there ... because they're going to get the wrong result, and they should damn well know it.  Lick you wounds, bide your time, and bring the case when you have a better chance of winning.  Don't lock in a bad result.

As far as IT goes ... I've been around here a lot longer than you have, and I've jousted with IT as much as anyone ... if someone has mentioned publicly that IT has been divorced, I've never noticed it.  I think he comes by his crazy views honestly.

Ha ha! Well, I remember the post. Maybe he shouldn't have put it out there, but he did.

And yes, I agree with you about bringing a case now. Frankly, for many reasons, I'd like the next President to be a Democrat so that we can have some balance on the Court. Bush put two members on it. If conservatives put two or three more members on it, I'll be dead before any such case would be successful, not to mention civil rights, business regulation and a host of other ways in which the Court would be stacked until most of are dead.

And Riley's exempt. He lives in Canada. They are much more sane about things like same-sex marriage and a host of other social issues.

Edit: we posted at the same time. :tongue:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7