A step backwards for America

[disgruntleddave]

No, I'm not talking about the presidential election.

I'm talking about:

Arkansas Initiative 1:
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children - Passed

Arizona Proposition 102:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed

California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed

Florida Amendment 2:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed


You may agree with these, you may not. I think nobody has the right to vote on an issue like this. If people had to vote on matters of equality, white men would have voted against giving women or black people the right to vote and things would be very different.

With all the talk, especially from African Americans, saying Obama helps prove that all men are created equal and that America is moving towards equality, it greatly disappoints me that these issues and decisions are not being given more attention as they are moving America in the opposite direction from the one spurred by Obama's election.

[JJuggle]

Of course, you're right.

WBAI (http://wbai.org/), Pacifica radio was discussing these issues this morning.

And, of course, Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/4/from_gay_marriage_to_predatory_lending) has focused on these issues.

[disgruntleddave]

I also have to add that I think that it's in serious breach of 'Separation of Church and State' that marriage is a religious institution - because lets face it, it is. People see marriage as something that has to do with god and their religion.

The problem is that marriage, a religious institution, gives couples rights, legal rights. If this isn't a breach of separation of church and state, I don't know what is.

To solve this, I think marriage should be solely a religious institution, and have nothing to do with rights. Marriage should mean nothing legally. A legal marriage should be renamed to being a civil union. People getting married in a religious context must also have a civil union to gain their rights as a couple, but marriage is not necessary for it. There should be no discriminating, all couples should have the right to a civil union and their rights.

Even many of those who are against same sex marriage tend to agree, at least partially, that this idea would be fine. They just want their word protected and owned by themselves, which I can understand if they believe it is a holy institution.

[JJuggle]

I have strongly resisted ceding the word "marriage" to the realm of religion believing that if heterosexual couples who are joined in civil unions are referred to as "married" then so should homosexual couples.

I think you may be right in what you suggest. However, if the net effect is to create equal status in name as well as in law for same-sex unions I think the fight might very well be just as difficult. It seems that Americans are, for the most part, more than willing to grant equal rights to gays just as long as they are differentiated in terms of "moral" status.

[Tak]

Florida Amendment 2:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed

Yeah, I'm particularly embarrassed by this. It passed by a wide margin in every single county in the state except Monroe.

The worst part is, it's not even just a ban on gay marriage; gay marriage was already not legally recognized here.
It's defining marriage in the state constitution as being between one man and one woman, so that it can't be repealed or overturned without the passage of another constitutional amendment.

I agree with disgruntleddave that much of the problem lies in the fact that marriage in this country confers certain legal rights and privileges upon the parties involved; to grant or deny those according to sexual preference is overt discrimination.

[Seager]

It illustrates that the nation hasn't changed much since 2004. Bush won that election on "moral" issues - on gay marriage and abortion, and if the election had been about those issues this time McCain would have won. The exit polls in 2004 said morals were most people's main reason for voting.

Obama won because "morals" weren't an issue in this election - the economy was, as was also shown by the exit polls.

The religious army that's hell bent on forcing their morals on us lost some votes to Obama because they were losing their jobs and are afraid. When they get comfortable again they'll be back, and they'll be voting in Republicans again.

We can only hope that we can educate them and their children on what "civil rights" really means before they get back in that ballot box.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

I don't know why people get so worked up over gays.
We don't do anything differently than anyone else but for some people, we're against God.
Not only is that incredibly offensive for us... but then they have to go ahead and make amendments that restrict us from marrying. Usually amendments have been made to help America live up to what it claims to be: a free and equal country. In this case, it's promoting backwards thought, bigotry and heterosexual supremacy.
Now for a funny picture.
29427

[videotoast]

No, I'm not talking about the presidential election.

I'm talking about:

Arkansas Initiative 1:
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children - Passed

Arizona Proposition 102:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed

California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed

Florida Amendment 2:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed


You may agree with these, you may not. I think nobody has the right to vote on an issue like this. If people had to vote on matters of equality, white men would have voted against giving women or black people the right to vote and things would be very different.

With all the talk, especially from African Americans, saying Obama helps prove that all men are created equal and that America is moving towards equality, it greatly disappoints me that these issues and decisions are not being given more attention as they are moving America in the opposite direction from the one spurred by Obama's election.


While I appreciate and encourage you to continue to express your opinions freely...that is the best part about living in a free and open society (of which I proudly served in the Marine Corps....), it is really a state's rights issue, in my opinion. It is not a Federal issue, nor should it be (or a Canadian issue, either)

Individual States can, and should have the ability to legislate as the local citizenry choses.....

While I don't agree with the the legislation that passed here in FL, I do have the right to chose where I live, and can move to another state that has policies I agree with.....

(let the slamming begin)

[SHAY_CAM]

It shouldnt be an issue at all.
Watch our country slowly turn into a monarchy over these 4 years.

[Gilby]

Welcome to democracy, where a majority plunders the minority. You are probably a minority on something and they will plunder you too.

[SHAY_CAM]

So if heterosexuals were the minority, and homosexuality was the majority, they would plunder us?(Us being the heterosexuals)
I find this no different then judging someboy by the color of their skin. Its unconstitutional.

[phlegm]

I'm bummed that we have to keep talking about it in California. I was already tired of talking about it. I'm surprised that even LA County voted yes (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0) by a slim margin.

[disgruntleddave]

Individual States can, and should have the ability to legislate as the local citizenry choses.....


No.

If individual states can and should have the ability to legislate as the local citizens choose, then predominantly white redneck states would not allow black people or women to vote.

These are issues that nobody has the right to vote on. Discrimination should not be allowed just because the majority supports it.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

While I appreciate and encourage you to continue to express your opinions freely...that is the best part about living in a free and open society (of which I proudly served in the Marine Corps....), it is really a state's rights issue, in my opinion. It is not a Federal issue, nor should it be (or a Canadian issue, either)

Individual States can, and should have the ability to legislate as the local citizenry choses.....

While I don't agree with the the legislation that passed here in FL, I do have the right to chose where I live, and can move to another state that has policies I agree with.....

(let the slamming begin)

State's rights is a code word for discrimination.

[cathwood]

No.

If individual states can and should have the ability to legislate as the local citizens choose, then predominantly white redneck states would not allow black people or women to vote.

These are issues that nobody has the right to vote on. Discrimination should not be allowed just because the majority supports it.


Well said.

[johnfoss]

With all the talk, especially from African Americans, saying Obama helps prove that all men are created equal and that America is moving towards equality, it greatly disappoints me that these issues and decisions are not being given more attention as they are moving America in the opposite direction from the one spurred by Obama's election.Ethnic minorities in America scored a huge victory yesterday, and it's still echoing around the world. It's been more than 232 years in the making, too. Gay rights may be next, but apparently it will still take some time for a lot of Americans to see the discrimination for what it is.

Then way, way back of the line, not in my lifetime I'm sure, it might be possible for the USA to have an agnostic or atheist president.

[maestro8]

These are issues that nobody has the right to vote on. Discrimination should not be allowed just because the majority supports it.

Unfortunately, the initiative process gives us this right. While there have been a few great pieces of legislation enacted through this process, there have been a lot of real stinkers.

Personally, I believe we should do away with the initiative process. It puts too much power in the hands of the stupid. Er, I mean hands of the people.

[JJuggle]

Gay rights may be next, but apparently it will still take some time for a lot of Americans to see the discrimination for what it is.

Then way, way back of the line, not in my lifetime I'm sure, it might be possible for the USA to have an agnostic or atheist president.
John, for me, at least thinking out loud, this is a chicken and egg question.

Fundamentally, religious fervor, which in some but not all translates to religious bigotry, is at the core of the discrimination against gay folks and the inability of atheists to be honest about their beliefs and succeed in politics.

Look at what happened to Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina. Her attacks on Kaye Hagan completely backfired. But what if Hagan had, in fact, been godless? The outcome would have been very different, I suspect.

I just don't see the rights of gays and the attitudes toward atheists advancing in any manner but simultaneously because the root problem in both cases is the same.

[johnfoss]

Personally, I believe we should do away with the initiative process. It puts too much power in the hands of the stupid. Er, I mean hands of the people.I wonder about this too. But I like having the chance to actually vote on a few things. The problem with many of these initiatives though, is that they're too hard to decipher. Prop 8 wasn't one of those, of course, being about as simple as you can get, but others are so complex you almost have to listen to the ads for and against them, which are basically meaningless.

Meanwhile, our representatives in government tend to just vote party lines so the parties rule. I'd like to think that occasionally the people can do better than that, but I will not forget the 2004 election...

I just don't see the rights of gays and the attitudes toward atheists advancing in any manner but simultaneously because the root problem in both cases is the same.Sorry but I must differ. In being gay, people are breaking a rule of religion. By being agnostic or atheist, one is threatening the very religion itself. Big difference!

[ThisGuyIKnow]

The thing is at lest in California I'm not so sure it's done yet, but I don't know what authority the Supreme Court has to rule a new Constitutional amendment unconstitutional, before it actually gets cemented into the constitution, maybe there is something they can still do.

[videotoast]

State's rights is a code word for discrimination.

No, it is not....

The federal governments responsibilities are different from state's responsibilities, wouldn't you agree?

Maybe a quick look at the Bill of Rights (The Tenth Amendment) should clarify it for you: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I have many friends from around the world who offer their opinions of what is going on in the US, but have never read even the Preamble to the Constitution....We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[phlegm]

Personally, I believe we should do away with the initiative process. It puts too much power in the hands of the stupid. Er, I mean hands of the people.

Yeah, like CA Prop 4. Haven't we voted on abortion notification a number of times in the past 10 years? Why do we have to keep voting on it, again and again with the same result? So annoying!

[maestro8]

Yeah, like CA Prop 4. Haven't we voted on abortion notification a number of times in the past 10 years? Why do we have to keep voting on it, again and again with the same result? So annoying!

So you're cool with maintaining a process that's being used to take rights away from others?

[phlegm]

So you're cool with maintaining a process that's being used to take rights away from others?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I was complaining about how the initiative process allows people to make us vote on the same issues over and over in a short period of time just because certain people aren't happy with the results.

[Jeremy R]

Im all for Gays, but what about piligimy? is that wrong too in your eyes?

[agentQ]

Unfortunately, the initiative process gives us this right. While there have been a few great pieces of legislation enacted through this process, there have been a lot of real stinkers.

Personally, I believe we should do away with the initiative process. It puts too much power in the hands of the stupid. Er, I mean hands of the people.

Yea. It took a lot of research for me to decide what to do about "Question 1" in CT, whether to have a constitutional convention or not. Seems like a lot of good could be done with it, but all the YES sayers seemed to be right winged extremest who wanted to use the CC as a way to strip the rights of gays, and make abortion illegal.

Still I was leaning toward YES, as how could a majority actually pass something so awful. However, there was a lady in the parking lot of my town hall (just over 75 feet from the door) trying to get people to vote yes. I didn't give her much of a chance to talk her point, I kinda just rambled the mixed up thoughts I had learned about the CC. Her expressions alone, to what I was saying, were enough for me to vote NO. She had EVIL pouring out of her eyes, and when it hit me I knew that the evil extremist were more apt to push for something bad, than the happy go lucky Joe Sixpack would push for something good.

Not to mention to many good things may lead to a bankrupted state. I don't think the people as a whole are smart enough to budget their good ideas. Making your state do something it can not afford seems just to easy for "the people" to do without even giving it a thought.

With all of those states stripping human beings of their rights is quite saddening, I am sooo glad that I voted NO on a CC and that the majority in CT did as well.

[maestro8]

I was complaining about how the initiative process allows people to make us vote on the same issues over and over in a short period of time just because certain people aren't happy with the results.

Ah. I thought you were being sarcastic. My bad.

[Mikefule]

The world is full of people whose principles tell them very clearly and firmly what other people should be allowed to do.

If it helps any of you gay people reading this and feeling left out: I've been married, and it's no fun. Trust me, you're missing nothing. I should have just found a woman I didn't like and bought her a house.

[videotoast]

The world is full of people whose principles tell them very clearly and firmly what other people should be allowed to do.

If it helps any of you gay people reading this and feeling left out: I've been married, and it's no fun. Trust me, you're missing nothing. I should have just found a woman I didn't like and bought her a house.

I have done the same thing....TWICE.....I think marriage is overrated, anyway....it would be better if marriage was just prohibited altogether!!!!

[XCcrev]

No, I'm not talking about the presidential election.

I'm talking about:

Arkansas Initiative 1:
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children - Passed

Arizona Proposition 102:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed

California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed

Florida Amendment 2:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed


You may agree with these, you may not. I think nobody has the right to vote on an issue like this. If people had to vote on matters of equality, white men would have voted against giving women or black people the right to vote and things would be very different.


Under the constitution people have the right to vote on these issues. If people did not the civil rights act of 1964 would never been passed. It was in fact passed by mostly white men. the people who voted against it also were mostly democrats

If nobody has a right to vote on issues like these who decides them then?
You?
The supreme court?
God?

[maestro8]

Under the constitution people have the right to vote on these issues.
You're mistaking the issue. The constitution says nothing about allowing the people to write their own laws... which is what happened here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative).

Legislators should be doing our legislating, not Joe the Plumber and Bob the Bible Thumper.

[disgruntleddave]

These issues should be decided by evaluating morals and ethics independently from religious ideals or norms.

If only the supreme court was objective enough to uphold equality and abolish discrimination and put forth rules to enforce this, I'd say them. Unfortunately they probably aren't completely objective, and even if they were, I have no idea what kind of process would be required to bring a topic like this (and other discrimination) to the supreme court. I'd expect the majority would resist enough to stop such a thing from ever happening.

[uni57]

If nobody has a right to vote on issues like these who decides them then?
You?
The supreme court?
God?Our elected representatives.

We the people elect them. Then our job is done. Except to possibly sway their vote (when the elected officials vote on issues). Lobby groups lobby. Individuals call, write letters, and email. The elected want to get re-elected, so they pay at least some attention to what the people want. And lastly, public opinion and consent is manufactured by the media and the invisible guiding hand of the PR agencies. It's a big loop, which feeds back into itself every step of the way.

I don't know why we vote directly on issues. The US isn't a direct democracy. The Wikipedia article on democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) is an interesting read. Scroll down to "Direct Democracy", which has a mention of California's extensive use of referendums.

Also, near the top, the third paragraph says...

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority".

So again, why do we vote on issues at all? Isn't our job simply to elect the officials?

[Tak]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'm pretty sure we settled this around 1864...

[peleschramm]

In Arkansas gay couples can't adopt?

Aren't single people even able to adopt?

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

yea, but fags have ass-sex and dykes have been known to use dildos and we can't teach our kids about that stuff.

[peleschramm]

yea, but fags have ass-sex and dykes have been known to use dildos and we can't teach our kids about that stuff.

true.


Edit: Wouldn't a gay couple just pretend that one of them is straight and single, therefore being able to adopt a child?

[Tak]

Edit: Wouldn't a gay couple just pretend that one of them is straight and single, therefore being able to adopt a child?
I suspect a nonmarried person would have a difficult time trying to adopt a child. I'm under the impression that adoption officials place a great deal of stock in what they consider "a stable family environment."

[timbob1907]

I think the thing thats a problem is that marriage is part of religion and states that it is between a man and a woman.
What I don't get is why they don't try and get separate a but equal arrangement that would get the same benefits of marriage but not be tied to religion.
Its like a teenager wanting to apply for a senior citizen discount. There's logically no reason to want one but at the same time there should be a teen discount with the same discount amount.

[Gilby]

Our elected representatives.

And judges and juries.

So again, why do we vote on issues at all? Isn't our job simply to elect the officials?

For the most part it should be. Those representatives also need to follow the rule of law, which they don't. We've been sold the idea that we are a democracy for over a century that people have lost the concept of there being any rule of law.

I found a good video series that explains how it should be: http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1125786#post1125786

[GILD]

Im all for Gays, but what about piligimy? is that wrong too in your eyes?

Ye (http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=piligamy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)s.
it would be better if marriage was just prohibited altogether!
I knew we'd finally agree on something.

+1

[BillyTheMountain]

I also have to add that I think that it's in serious breach of 'Separation of Church and State' that marriage is a religious institution - because lets face it, it is. People see marriage as something that has to do with god and their religion.

The problem is that marriage, a religious institution, gives couples rights, legal rights. If this isn't a breach of separation of church and state, I don't know what is.

To solve this, I think marriage should be solely a religious institution, and have nothing to do with rights. Marriage should mean nothing legally. A legal marriage should be renamed to being a civil union. People getting married in a religious context must also have a civil union to gain their rights as a couple, but marriage is not necessary for it. There should be no discriminating, all couples should have the right to a civil union and their rights.

Even many of those who are against same sex marriage tend to agree, at least partially, that this idea would be fine. They just want their word protected and owned by themselves, which I can understand if they believe it is a holy institution.

What should we do about pre-marital sex?

[JJuggle]

What should we do about pre-marital sex?
Call it pre-union union.

[SHAY_CAM]

What should we do about pre-marital sex?

You cant do anything, why do you think its bad?
Sex is a very natural thing.

[BillyTheMountain]

You cant do anything, why do you think its bad?
Sex is a very natural thing.

How natural? You have to be taught, unlike the lower animals.

[Gilby]

How natural? You have to be taught, unlike the lower animals.

I'm sure if you put two people together without such knowledge, that they'd figure it out without ever being taught.

[JJuggle]

How natural? You have to be taught, unlike the lower animals.
It does not follow from the fact that we are taught, that we have to be.

[harper]

How natural? You have to be taught, unlike the lower animals.

I can't believe how often tall, height bigots like yourself are willing to take cheap shots at shorter people. Lower animals, indeed!

[johnfoss]

What should we do about pre-marital sex?Avoid getting married, I guess. Once you get married I guess you're out of luck on that! :cool:

[BillyTheMountain]

It does not follow from the fact that we are taught, that we have to be.


Woot!! you pwnd me!

just like math and reading, we don't have to be taught, but we just won't know how to do it. no big deal.

[mornish]

About Prop 8: Shouldn't it be ruled a revision, not an amendment, and thus need 2/3 of the vote? From my understanding, an amendment spells out something not already in the constitution, and needs only 51% or so of the vote to pass, while a revision changes something already in the constitution, and needs 2/3s the vote. Isn't there already quite a bit in the constitution about equality and marriage and all that fun stuff?

Also, it doesn't seem right to be able to change the constitution to take away rights.

-Miles

[lunicycle]

What should we do about pre-marital sex?

enjoy it, I guess! :p

[johnfoss]

Isn't there already quite a bit in the constitution about equality and marriage and all that fun stuff?I haven't read it either, but why should a constitution, for a state or the big Fed one, have to talk about marriage? I assume it's not already in there.

Also, it doesn't seem right to be able to change the constitution to take away rights.I'm in agreement there, I thought such documents were for spelling out/guaranteeing rights, not the opposite. Though I'm sure there are some people out there who think their rights are being infringed by somebody else getting married...

Anyway, it looks like the next phase will be some lawsuits or otherwise attempts to prevent this amendment. I don't know if any of that will work after "the people" have had their say (again), we'll just have to see.

[SHAY_CAM]

When we passed amendment 14, it was said not to discriminate toward anyone, no blacks, gays, lesbians, all races. Them passing the 'no gay marrying' law is unconsitutional.

[SHAY_CAM]

I can't believe how often tall, height bigots like yourself are willing to take cheap shots at shorter people. Lower animals, indeed!

Your like, the first person to defend me. Thanks.

[Gilby]

I don't know if any of that will work after "the people" have had their say (again), we'll just have to see.

Keep in mind, this is a Republic, not a Democracy. If a court does not find this as being unlawful, then they are not following the basis of law and they are instead presuming that this society is based on the "rule of men" instead of the "rule of law". If that is the case, then anything goes... you have no rights... people are not equal... only the politically connected have rights.

[cathwood]

When we passed amendment 14, it was said not to discriminate toward anyone, no blacks, gays, lesbians, all races. Them passing the 'no gay marrying' law is unconsitutional.

In the UK it would be unlawful to discriminate against particular people getting married. It would be seen as a breach of their human rights and whatever institution was stopping them getting married would be liable to prosecution under the Human Rights Act.

[GILD]

I'm sure if you put two people together without such knowledge, that they'd figure it out without ever being taught.

You just saw Blue Lago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blue_lagoon_(1980_film))on one too many time during an impressionable time of your life, didn't ya?

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Gawd, I'm so pissed of about this.
This is the first time we've changed the constitution to discriminate against people.
This has NEVER happened before.
Usually Amerika gets slowly but surely better...

[videotoast]

Gawd, I'm so pissed of about this.
This is the first time we've changed the constitution to discriminate against people.
This has NEVER happened before.
Usually Amerika gets slowly but surely better...

Something happened to the Constitution?????

I have a few friends over at the National Archives, I will have them double check for me....

[maestro8]

Something happened to the Constitution????

He's talking about California's constitution.

This is, indeed, a dire time. There are many people who are upset, and many are taking action. Several law suits have been filed, including one by the ACLU (http://aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html). The fight is just beginning.

[johnfoss]

The fight is just beginning.Yes, and I'm still waiting for a compelling argument from the "marriage is being threatened" crowd. Anyone? How does someone else getting married affect your marriage?

[Tak]

Anyone? How does someone else getting married affect your marriage?
I think Chris Rock is onto something. YouTube - Chris Rock - Gay marriage

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Yes, and I'm still waiting for a compelling argument from the "marriage is being threatened" crowd. Anyone? How does someone else getting married affect your marriage?

The only marriages that are threatend are the marriages that are illegal.

[phlegm]

We must end our government's destruction of marriage in California. Please, sign the petition (http://www.gopetition.com/online/23101.html).

[maestro8]

Better than signing a petition, you can send a message to the church of LDS, who contributed millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to the campaign for prop. 8.

Revoke their non-profit status with the IRS. (http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/)

Through their action, they've violated the tax code that gave them their non-profit status. Visit the above link, spend a few minutes filling out some paperwork, and you can send a message to the church.

[Gilby]

Revoke their non-profit status with the IRS. (http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/)

Through their action, they've violated the tax code that gave them their non-profit status. Visit the above link, spend a few minutes filling out some paperwork, and you can send a message to the church.

Looking at the IRC that site quotes, they did not violate it. The term "legislation" equals statutory law, not constitutional law, as this case is.