|
| Welcome, Anonymous. You last visited: Today at 04:56 AM |
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Contacts & Friends |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Find All Thanked Posts |
Quick Links | ||||
Today's Posts | ||||
Mark Forums Read | ||||
Open Contacts Popup | ||||
User Control Panel | ||||
Edit Signature |
Go to Page... |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
| |||
CA Proposition 8 The protest surrounding this is not dying down. There was a protest in West LA this afternoon large enough for police to close 2 major routes as protesters marched from the Mormon Temple (organizer and significant contributor) to the Federal Building, and last night's protest in West Hollywood was significantly larger than anticipated. A challenge has already been filed by 3 different groups with the California Supreme Court. The page also includes an additional article on the status of those couples who have already received marriage licenses. |
| |||
The legal challenge to prop 8 is probably one of the most important civil rights cases I've seen. The question being posed is: can the fundamental rights enjoyed by all citizens be removed from a targeted minority by a majority vote? In legalese, the issue involves fundamental rights (marriage), suspect classification, and equal protection. In reality, should the courts rule against us, any minority group that is unpopular could lose rights enjoyed by everyone else. Supporting groups like Lambda, the ACLU, and NCLR should be a priority for any fair-minded person. __________________ http://www.scott-safier.us "Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The truth and a lie are not sort of the same thing. And there's no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with pizza." Daria |
| |||
Quote:
(Yes, the above paragraph was very sarcastic, so I hope nobody takes it the wrong way.) This next bit may seem slightly off topic to some of you, but I think it fits this thread rather well. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said something along the lines of the following... "For those who give up a little freedom, for a little security; deserve neither, and lose both." __________________ In the MGS FC's I am Psycho Mantis! "Put your controller on the floor...Put it down as flat as you can...That's good. Now I will move your controller by the power of my will alone!" |
| |||
Once the precincts have all been declared (grumbles at the length of time California is taking to count 100% of precincts) I'll produce a list of the results including swing since 2000, gains and which counties need to vote NO in any future state ballot for the issue to pass. __________________ The stronger they are, the more muscled they are |
| |||
Not enough Quote:
__________________ God is in the rain. |
| |||
Without seeming to diminish your point, Brent, the 2 routes that were closed were Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards. In that part of town LA has no subways, light rail or trolley cars, and those 2 streets are the major east/west routes leading to the only North/South freeway that passes through the mountains to the north. The goal of the protest was not to obstruct traffic. That area is the site of the Mormon Temple of Los Angeles (on Sta. Monica Boulevard) and the Federal Building is within 2 miles on Wilshire Boulevard. While not a complete shutdown, if it were any later and larger, and it could have brought most of the west side to a standstill. LA is too sprawling to bring to a complete halt. AlterNet.org has another perspective on the situation, and the editorials are coming out in force against Prop 8. |
| |||
I lived in Utah for a very short period in the early 1990's & I learned that Mormon marriage ceremonies (temple ceremonies) involve appeasement of Satan. Also, they still believe in polygamy, and some sects still believe in infanticide. I wonder how much we don't know about this secretive society that is allowed to operate as a, "Church". As for LA having no major mass transit, I've never lived there, bu it seems to me that there must be other major targets like the I5 maybe? __________________ God is in the rain. |
| |||
Prop 8 result (with 100% of precincts declared) Statewide Tallies [COLOR="Lime"]YES, I agree with Prop 8: 5,454,192 (52.43% -8.93%)[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]NO, I do not agree with Prop 8: 4,949,108 (47.57% +8.93%)[/COLOR] [COLOR="Lime"]YES wins by 505,084 (4.86%) on a swing of 8.93% to NO[/COLOR] [COLOR="Black"]County Changes[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]NO Gains: Alpine (20% swing), Contra Costa (11% swing), Humboldt (13% swing), Mendocino (12% swing), Mono (16% swing), Monterey (8% swing), Napa (12% swing), San Mateo (13% swing), Santa Barbara (10% swing), Santa Clara (8% swing)[/COLOR] GAINS to make next time to ensure passage Los Angeles County: [COLOR="Lime"]YES 50.4%[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]NO 49.6%[/COLOR] Nevada County: [COLOR="Lime"]YES 50.8%[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]NO 49.3%[/COLOR] __________________ The stronger they are, the more muscled they are |
| |||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________ The stronger they are, the more muscled they are |
| |||
A Petition is being circulated in an effort to strip the Mormon Church of its tax-exempt status. |
| |||
This is a blog post from a chaired professor in Civil Liberties and Civil Rights at the University of Minnesota Law School on the legal arguments being presented in the proposition 8 case. It is very well written. __________________ http://www.scott-safier.us "Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The truth and a lie are not sort of the same thing. And there's no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with pizza." Daria |
| |||
I regret missing the SF protest last Friday evening because I work in downtown SF. Had I known about the 'No on 8' protest in the Castro, I would have joined it after leaving work that day. I apparently didn't get the memo. Sigh, traveller |
| |||
__________________ http://www.scott-safier.us "Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The truth and a lie are not sort of the same thing. And there's no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with pizza." Daria |
| |||
I don't consider myself a homosexual (I really haven't had the chance with a woman or man yet), so I was wondering if you guys could answer some questions I have. First of all, I'm an atheist, so religion doesn't even enter my debate over this, but as such, I think "marriage" (the TERM) is strictly a religous concept that the church can voluntarily give to any couple they wish. With that said, government extends benefits to "married" couples in the form of tax breaks and what not. If the government referred to these "marriages" strictly on the fact that they are "civil unions" and ignored the concept of "marriage" entirely, would gay couples settle on the idea that to the government they are still a legal union under the law but leave "marriage" up to the individual religous institutions (that may or may not accept your lifestyle)? Basically, to me, "marriage" is like an option (like putting an exhaust on your car or something - not to mitigate the practice... I'm just trying to draw a parallel), but the actual civil union between the man and woman... or woman and woman.. or man and man... is the same no matter what, entitling each type of couple to equal benefits and rights under the law. "Marriage", however, would only be a decision that churches can make. Is this realistic? Is there opposition to this? I believe it gets everyone what they want (except for the bigots and religous zealots that simply don't like homosexuality) by giving YOU the rights you deserve (under the 9th amendment) and removing the government's respect for a particular religion (under the 1st amendment). See, I don't see this as a religous or sexual issue. It's equality. Since straight couples get benefits, gay couples should too because the 9th amendment does not allow for equality to be "denied or disparaged to others retained by the people". Seeing as equality is garunteed by the 9th amendment, the 10th amendment does not give states the authority to rule on this issue. So when the people violate the 9th amendment, the courts, as detailed in Article II, have a constitutional obligation to step in and set things right. The only other option is to end the system of benefits to married couples (not an option at all, really). So to sum up my long, drawn out opinion: Equality is the issue here. Equality cannot be violated no matter how many people think it's alright which takes the decision away from the states and gives the courts total authority to intervene. But equality is only equality if it's equal. This means dropping the term "marriage" from the list of things you deserve and how the way government recognizes unions. You have to be willing to submit to the concept that marriage is a religous concept, a concept that the state has no jurisdiction over, so you cannot be "garunteed" it. I believe this is the way to get homosexual couples recognized by the state and let them apply for the same rights as heterosexual couples. Would homosexuals, or at least the small group of you here, have a problem with this? __________________ [Insert witty quote here...] |
| |||
abbraxis, Like every other issue man has argued over in our entire history, everybody is going to have an opinion about this and your not going to get even gay people to agree 100%. I'm gay, but would be perfectly satisfied with the legal equality. That's because, and I'm gonna REALLY throw a wrench into the works here, I'm also a Christian but I don't believe in the church or organized religion...I see those as tools man has used to control his fellow man throughout history by using his faith against him. For me, marriage is a religious union in which I have no interest, yet I have a partner (who is not a Christian) who wants to get married...go figure. There are, however, a lot of religious homosexuals that want very much to be able to marry the person they love in the church and there are a lot of non-religious homosexuals that just want the right to do it. I will support them in enforcing that right...the battle just isn't over yet. But for my needs, your solution works just fine. |
| |||
Just today, someone who I watch over on dA posted this very simple deviation: http://stardragon77.deviantart.com/a...op-8-104124244 This guy is straight as a rod, but he hits the nail perfectly on the head, especially in his comments: "Recently in several states they made Proposition 8 which is essentially asking is gay marriage should be banned. Really what this is is not only bigotry being made into law but also its the church interfering with public policy. It goes to show that George Carlin was right, 'the seperation of church and state wasn't to protect the church from government, but to protect government from the church.' And like George Carlin I say that if the church wants to get involved with public policy they should pay taxes. 'Pay your admission price like everyone else.'" __________________ In the MGS FC's I am Psycho Mantis! "Put your controller on the floor...Put it down as flat as you can...That's good. Now I will move your controller by the power of my will alone!" |
| |||
Prop 8 Soon to Be In Court Prop 8 is going to the CA State Supreme Court, possibly as early as March, and a decision will be made by the court within 90 days of that hearing. It is going to court over the legal definitions within the California State Constitutions regarding "Revisions" versus "Amendments." Amendments are "additions to the Constitution." Revisions are "fundamental changes to the nature of California State Government." A revision is supposed to be approved by 2/3 of both houses of the state legislature before going before the people for a vote. Prop 8 was filed as an amendment, which only requires a majority vote by the people. The LGBT community is arguing that Prop 8 is actually a revision, and they have a fairly strong case -- IF the members of the court are truly the strict interpretationists they claim to be. Prop 8 flies directly in the face of the equality clause, which has been present within the CA state constitution since its inception: "(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privilegesor immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." It was this clause that was the primary reason same-sex marriage was permitted in the first place. __________________ Working out is erotic, once you really get into it. Last edited by monstermusclebe; November 24th, 2008 at 05:52 PM. Reason: Adding something about Prop 8 |
| |||
Responding to Abbraxis / Civil Unions for All? + LGBT and Religous Marriage In response to your post in this thread, Abbraxis... I think, as far as civil rights and being equal under the law is concerned, that the GLBT community would be happy with civil unions provided that it was all that straight couples were granted, too. The problem there is that the straight community won't go for that, "They" want "their" marriages legally recognized as such, rather than being referred to by another name. Why? Because they actually DO know that separate-but-equal is not equal, when it refers to something that affects them directly. They know that calling their relationship a "civil union" is not the same as calling it a "marriage." It isn't just semantics. So forget getting rid of "legal marriage" as an option, at least for now. That fight is even BIGGER than the fight for marriage equality that is going on today... Why? Because you are going right up against a long-standing legal institution that the great majority of the culture currently subscribes to, and is quite happy with, thank you very much! And most of "them" aren't nearly as logical as you are. :-) As for the religious side of the picture, I point you to the organization Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org. They are offering Gandhian and MLK-like nonviolent noncooperation within the religions that their members are a part of, in regards to LGBT rights to marriage -- primarily within christian denominations, but also within Islam, and I am sure they would begin to focus on other religions once the main battle with christianity has moved forward significantly. So the "battle" for equality of marriage within religions is definitely being "fought" on that level as well. __________________ Working out is erotic, once you really get into it. |
| |||
I thought the CA supreme court had agreed to convene in order to decide the status of the 16000 - 18000 couples already holding marriage licenses. I hadn't realized they'd agreed to take up the 'revision v. amendment' discussion. |
| |||
CA Supreme Court They're looking into both the revision v. amendment as well as the status of the existing same-sex marriages. Likely to see the hearing before April, with a decision before the end of June... though that is 'likely' not 'definite.' __________________ Working out is erotic, once you really get into it. |
vBulletin Message | |
Cancel Changes |
Display Modes |
Linear Mode |
Switch to Hybrid Mode |
Switch to Threaded Mode |
|
|