|
Post by Snegurochka on Mar 5, 2009 23:42:56 GMT -5
I had a bit tl;dr comment written out for this, but it was kind of incoherent with rage.
Fuck you, California. Just. . . fuck you. With a razor laced with some icky venereal disease.
Tyranny of the majority, smug Prop 8-supporting motherfuckers: learn you it.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Mar 5, 2009 23:45:45 GMT -5
And this is one more reason the religious reichstag can kiss my ass. Their misery is not theirs to inflict, and it is not their right to get involved in something that is none of their business. Fuck the religious reichstag.
Now let me be clear, by "religious reichstag," I refer to the bastards (including the LDS church, the AFA, Focus on the Family, and others) who feel their station entitles them to power. I know not all religious are members of the reich. What do I want? I want the fuckwits in those groups to fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 6, 2009 0:59:31 GMT -5
I believe that the Scandianvian countries have done this. That's why fundies trot out such huge numbers of children from unwed mothers. They're not counting the couples who just went down to the local courthouse. My opinion is that this way the baby can have it's bottle. You want marriage to be a big church thing, the rest of us (who don't have $30.000 to waste) will head down to the county clerks. Of course there will be some who bitch and howl because they want to be married even though they don't go to church. Others will bitch and howl because of teh gehz. But I still think it would be easier to push this through, you cant say teh gehz are ruining the sanctity of marriage. I still can't see the fundies giving up. They don't want gays treated as equal, because to them it endorses it. Which is ridiculous, but then, so is the opposition to what consenting adults do to each other or who they live with. I mean, seriously, they don't want gays to marry, whatever it's called. They don't want us out, they don't want us to exist. Maybe I'm just a little negative, but I've suffered for the ignorance of the masses enough that I can't help but let that colour me a little. I've had the crap kicked out of me, including being stabbed once, because I'm "obviously" gay. My ex is so far in the closet she's terrified to even look at another woman, because her family will disown her for being a lesbian. Even in this decade, it's so very hard to come out for so many (especially rural settings), because of public distaste, and I don't see the distaste going away just because we change the name of the marriage concept. In fact, the backlash in Vermont was pretty bad, even though when civil unions were created it defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Far as the homophobes were concerned, gays were still able to get married. It looks like New Jersey has had similar backlash, too. *sigh* Sorry to be a downer. This stuff pisses me off so much I was actually shaking earlier. Not to mention, I've been spending the last couple of months trying to get over a couple decades worth of fear, so animosity towards the GBLT community is kind of a raw nerve with me right now.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 6, 2009 1:00:34 GMT -5
All of the above and sad and disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 6, 2009 2:05:28 GMT -5
No problem, it doesn't really affect me since I'm straight and shacked up. I have friends who have been beaten up just for looking gay at a bus stop (they weren't gay, just small and neat). But I am a moderate, which of course means I get run down by both sides It just seems to work over in Europe, so I thought it may be a rational solution. At least enough to get past an election.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 6, 2009 9:55:53 GMT -5
No problem, it doesn't really affect me since I'm straight and shacked up. I have friends who have been beaten up just for looking gay at a bus stop (they weren't gay, just small and neat). But I am a moderate, which of course means I get run down by both sides It just seems to work over in Europe, so I thought it may be a rational solution. At least enough to get past an election. It doesn't entirely affect me, because I have no real plans to marry in my lifetime. Still, things change. Maybe in a few years, I do want to settle down, and I could be told no. I say "could" because of the interesting headache of being bisexual and transgendered (Some states only count your birth gender, regardless...). Anyway, I'd be all for legal civil unions for all, as long as they were actually equal. The main problem is that there isn't really a model yet for that. Even states with vicil unions intended to be marriage for gays don't include all the rights and benefits of marriage, and as long as we have a federal Defense of Marriage Act that shoots down same sex civil unions as well, we have a lot that would have to happen to make even "alternate name marriage" happen. I definitely understand catching flak for being a moderate, and I don't mean to rain any more down on you. My main problem with civil unions isn't so much that I need to hear the word marriage as it is with the current inequity and the resistance I see from the same people if we try and make it equal. And it does work in Europe, but I think we're significantly culturally different, and not in a good way.
|
|
|
Post by Booley on Mar 6, 2009 12:44:27 GMT -5
Go to a state that performs gay marriages. Then, to quote someone who is famous but shouldn't be, "Git er done". Then go back to your home state. Your marriage, performed in another state, has to be recognized, constitutionally, by every other state! .... Not quite. DOMA allows other states to not recognize a same sex marriage from another state. That's why say, New York had to decide to recognize out of state gay marriages on their own (even as they don't recognize such unions performed in New York. Oy vay) NOW, I think there is a good argument that DOMA violates the constitution's full faith and credit clause. But it's not up to me. It's up to the SCOTUS. A SCOTUS that has guys like ALito and Roberts and Scalia and Thomas. Once the SCOTUS rules one way or the other, it take s a very long time to undo. Probably through the legislature (who are even less likely to vote our way) What really disturbs me is Ken Star arguing that rights can be taken away with a majority vote and that any of the JUstices would accept that idea. It goes against the entire reason we have a bill of rights.
|
|
|
Post by MozMode on Mar 6, 2009 14:17:01 GMT -5
Go to a state that performs gay marriages. Then, to quote someone who is famous but shouldn't be, "Git er done". Then go back to your home state. Your marriage, performed in another state, has to be recognized, constitutionally, by every other state! .... Not quite. DOMA allows other states to not recognize a same sex marriage from another state. That's why say, New York had to decide to recognize out of state gay marriages on their own (even as they don't recognize such unions performed in New York. Oy vay) NOW, I think there is a good argument that DOMA violates the constitution's full faith and credit clause. But it's not up to me. It's up to the SCOTUS. A SCOTUS that has guys like ALito and Roberts and Scalia and Thomas. Once the SCOTUS rules one way or the other, it take s a very long time to undo. Probably through the legislature (who are even less likely to vote our way) What really disturbs me is Ken Star arguing that rights can be taken away with a majority vote and that any of the JUstices would accept that idea. It goes against the entire reason we have a bill of rights. That's what its called, Defense of Marriage Act.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 6, 2009 15:49:03 GMT -5
NOW, I think there is a good argument that DOMA violates the constitution's full faith and credit clause. But it's not up to me. It's up to the SCOTUS. A SCOTUS that has guys like ALito and Roberts and Scalia and Thomas. Once the SCOTUS rules one way or the other, it take s a very long time to undo. Probably through the legislature (who are even less likely to vote our way) Yep. There's actually no doubt in my mind that the DOMA is Unconstitutional. However comma, the only body we can effectively argue that against is unlikely to rule in support of gays. Pardon me for the tangent by the way, but one of the things that annoys me with the DOMA is the author. Bob Barr, who is one of those libertarian darlings the fringe seems to love. Now, libertarians are supposed to be supporters of less Government and more personal responsibility, so why is it they always support these guys (Ron Paul, Bob Barr) who want to add more laws to the pile in terms of who can marry and who can sleep with who? For that matter, why do these small government Constitutionalists keep deciding that the Constitution doesn't apply to gays?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 7, 2009 0:51:42 GMT -5
I find that I don't get overly angry about things like this. Oh, I do occasionally, but mostly it just breaks my heart. Somehow, people miss the fact that it is not by appearance or creed or choice or sexuality or even our actions that gives us value, but by dint of our very humanity. Ignoring the fact, diminishing a single person (if I might paraphrase Donne), in turn diminishes every person. We cannot afford to take even the first steps down this road, because it violates the very most basic premises of the nation's founding - that all people are created equal. The Founders did not ultimately believe that, as they proved in other ways, but it has for two centuries and more set the ideal toward which this society, toward which every society which hopes to improve the state of our human race and our world, must aspire. Our failure here, as Americans, is a tragedy. But there is hope. History is a chain of triumphs over injustices, and not by fiat or happenstance but by the collective will of those who would step forward in defense of their fellow men. This is a battle, and one that is lost. But the war moves forward, and it will, in time, be won. Perhaps not soon, but it is as inevitable as the tides. Pardon me for the tangent by the way, but one of the things that annoys me with the DOMA is the author. Bob Barr, who is one of those libertarian darlings the fringe seems to love. Now, libertarians are supposed to be supporters of less Government and more personal responsibility, so why is it they always support these guys (Ron Paul, Bob Barr) who want to add more laws to the pile in terms of who can marry and who can sleep with who? For that matter, why do these small government Constitutionalists keep deciding that the Constitution doesn't apply to gays? Because otherwise political libertarians would have no power. Since the Republicans handed such enormous power to the social conservative wing of the party in order court the fundie Christians, the libertarian wing of the party has been almost a non-entity. There aren't enough people who identify as political libertarians to make a difference - they either end up in the Democratic camp for social libertarian principles, swallowing the consequent left-wing economics, or they end up in the Republican camp for small-government economic libertarianism and swallow the social conservatism. Of course this has bitten them in the ass, since the Republicans don't even pretend to practice small government anymore, but one way or the other they have to accept policies they won't like. Of course, a lot of people who call themselves "libertarian" in the US mean to ensure the freedom for people to do what the libertarian thinks is right.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 7, 2009 2:39:07 GMT -5
The other problem is the majority of Americans are batshit stupid fucktards who don't WANT to think for themselves and therefore believe everything they're told about how civil unions and marriages are already exactly the same thing minus the church. These asshatcumsticks are the same asshatcumsticks who vote down party lines, say yes to things they know the name of, and sue McDonalds for not telling them their coffee was hot.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Mar 7, 2009 4:56:58 GMT -5
I thought so but was not sure. There is still hope in the future with the US Supreme Court. It will probably take some time to get to that point, but at some point it will. I don't think so, not on this one at least. Since the law in question was a state constitutional amendment I think state Supreme Court is as high as it goes. SCOTUS could get involved if it was challenged as being invalid under the US constitution (e.g. 14th amendment), but I don't think that's what the current case is based on. I've said it before, but the real problem is that the state constitution was too damn easy to change. A simple majority vote should not be enough to change something that is supposed to be a "foundation document".
|
|
|
Post by Lt Fred on Mar 7, 2009 5:25:15 GMT -5
sue McDonalds for not telling them their coffee was hot. Are you aware of what occured in that case? A woman ended up with 3rd degree burns to a significant part of her body, because of cofee that McDonalds served negligently hot.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 7, 2009 6:40:28 GMT -5
Well I was going to go with the "for making them fat" but I figured that was a little too cliche. The concept is still there, though, because afterwards there were people trying to sue because they slipped on the floor after spilling their own drinks and other bullshit like that. The message that people got was they could sue anyone for anything, and they didn't really know the specifics of what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 7, 2009 8:30:41 GMT -5
You know I though we were gettign so close, I really did. Its amazing that the majority can still decide to take the rights of other human beings, I guess its just dehumanization again, gays are reduced from people to the action of havign sex with someone of the same gender.
|
|