Again, I gotta ask, A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? REALLY?

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

Wouldn't the most obvious solution be to have an Amendment barring divorce first?

No.

What about a constitutional amendment against adultery? Don't you think that damages the sanctity of marriage?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Actually, I kind of agree with Benny's idea. The government can handle the legalities, call it civil union or whatever. This could apply to two people of any gender. Then if you want to get "married", go to your church.

That's exactly what they're doing in SF...they don't have priests there, they're deputized JPs. It's just a civil ceremony anyway.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually, I kind of agree with Benny's idea. The government can handle the legalities, call it civil union or whatever. This could apply to two people of any gender. Then if you want to get "married", go to your church.

That's exactly what they're doing in SF...they don't have priests there, they're deputized JPs. It's just a civil ceremony anyway.

They should do it within the law. I know that there are many unjust laws on the books. They should be removed or amended, but until then they are the law.

never pull low......unless you are

[PhillyKev 0]

I agree with you to a point. But I just see this tactic as a way to bring the spotlight on the issue and push through the changing of the law. It seems to be working from the other direction and got Bush to endorse an amendment. I think they're doing it to push this through for resolution. Otherwise, it would never be resolved.

Edit to add:

Plus, that just brings us back to the question...which law? The statute or the Ca. constitution?

[Kennedy 0]

Kev, I couldn't find sexual preference or homosexuality anywhere in the California constitution. Where is it?

They pushed for resolution on the presidential ballot a few years ago. They just don't like the resolution they got.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

What about a constitutional amendment against adultery? Don't you think that damages the sanctity of marriage?

You don't need an amendment where there are already laws against it that no one is arguing against.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Kev, I couldn't find sexual preference or homosexuality anywhere in the California constitution. Where is it?

They pushed for resolution on the presidential ballot a few years ago. They just don't like the resolution they got.

No, but there is regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

What about a constitutional amendment against adultery? Don't you think that damages the sanctity of marriage?

You don't need an amendment where there are already laws against it that no one is arguing against.

Ok, you got me there. But if the goal is to "protect the sanctimony of marriage" and not to discriminate based on prejudice, than I'll borrow a line from your friend and mine, the NRA.

Enforce the existing laws before passing new ones.

[tbrown 26]

Excellent points Bill, on both interracial marriage and the Bill of Rights. I'd like to add that I DO believe the family is the pillar of American society. And I think the definition of family can be broadened to include families based around same sex parents. Same sex parents want the best for their kids, they want them to get an education, they worry about drugs and violence in their kids' schools, everything else that any hetero couple of parents want and worry about. But they have the added burden of being told their family isn't legitmate, it doesn't exist. You ever tell a kid his or her family isn't real ? Well our asshole President just did...

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Well our asshole President just did...

Shame on you. How do you know he did not have another long talk with GOD on this issue. You better fall in line mister. You would not want to miss the rapture bus when it comes would you?

[freeflybella 0]

Who does he think he is - attempting to make it forever and unquestionably law? It's arrogant and presumptuous and uncompassionate. Makes me sad to think I live in a country where 'principle' and or 'tradition' is more important than love and life.



For all of you out there who are lonely and wish you could find the 'perfect' someone to spend your life with, just imagine how much more difficult it would be if it were not only 'looked down upon' - but also CONSTITUTIONALLY illegal.

Do you not feel anything for those longing to love and be loved?

We're not talking about the right to go out and fuck who or what you want - you don't have to be gay to do that - in fact, it's mostly declared heteros who are the most severely sexually disordered.

We're talking about the right of 2 sincere, loving committed adults to have their union recognized and respected as real in the eyes of the law of our wonderful, 'accepting' country.

I find it as disgusting and shameful as the merciless, ungodly enslavement and slaughter of millions of sentient animals in the name of gluttony and greed.

We're so generally disconnected from our feelings and spirituality as humans - that we allow practice and law to continue to destroy them.

(Patience. love and perserverance.)

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[tunaplanet 0]

I wasn't going to chime in on yet another pointless "Pro/Con Rep/Dem" thread, but had to throw my pair of pennies in the ring.

I only read Quade's opening remarks of this thread. Reminds me of that old saying. Opinions are like assholes...

I am glad he has the balls to stand up and fight for something he believes in. Right or wrong, he's leading from the front, not the rear. He believes in something and going after it. It's far more inspiring than anything Clinton ever did. I admire anyone who stands up and fights for what he believes in...whether I agree with it or not.

Quade, your opinions are very typical of the average democrat. Everything republicans do is crap and everything democrats do is the second coming of Christ. Talk about sheep.

Personally, I don't align myself with a certain party. I look at the individual...not his party. I don't give a flying fuck if he's Rep, Dem, Independant or has a religeous belief that involves praying to a hand-made shrine of Gary Coleman in his basement on every 3rd full moon. It's the man that counts. Nothing more, nothing less.

I mentioned this in an earlier thread and will say it again. This country would be far better off if it lined up behind the elected leader of this country and followed him/her to hell and back. You don't like who is running the country? Fine. You have your chance to decide every four years. Do we have loyalty and a faithful pledge to follow our leader anywhere? Not even close. Instead we have sheep that align themselves with a party regardless of the individual representing it.

Anywho, just my two cents.

Peace

Forty-two

[billvon 2,435]

> I don't give a flying fuck if he's Rep, Dem, Independant or has a
> religeous belief that involves praying to a hand-made shrine of Gary
> Coleman in his basement on every 3rd full moon. It's the man that
> counts.

I agree, and I don't care either if he has a shrine to Gary Coleman unless he tries to force me or my friends pray to it too. If he's against homosexuality - thinks it's a horrible abomination - that's fine. If he goes after friends of mine and tries to impose his religious values on them - not so fine.

>This country would be far better off if it lined up behind the
>elected leader of this country and followed him/her to hell and back.

We have a president, not a king. Congress and the courts were given far more power than the president. Want to support this country? Follow congress to hell and back. Research, and vote for, local, state and federal representatives, and then support them when they make law. This country needs good government, not a stronger, blindly followed king.

[JDBoston 0]

This country would never have been established in the first place if it had been populated by a bunch of yes-men.

Joe

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Kev, I couldn't find sexual preference or homosexuality anywhere in the California constitution. Where is it?

No, but there is regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation.

OK, that's what I meant, sexual orientation. So where is it in the Cali constitution? You know, article this, seciton that. I'm just wondering, becuase I didn't see it. [I didn't put that much time into it]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

Quote

I only read Quade's opening remarks of this thread
. . .
Quade, your opinions are very typical of the average democrat.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that not reading the rest of the thread wasn't your best stategy here.

I think you'll see a very wide range of people do not support the President's views on this subject.

Just for the record, I do not think that everything the Republicans do is crap and I certainly don't think the Democrats are the second coming.

I generally do not vote party but do vote for the person I think is the best choice for the country's needs. Like yourself, I think it's the man that counts.

In this case, I do not like the man.

I thought he wasn't the right man before he was elected. I do not think he was making good choices for the country before September 11. I think he has made poor choices in being side-tracked in Iraq.

This is just another example in a very, very long string of things that he has done to divide the country rather than unify it.

This is just another example of a something that I believe makes him not re-electable.

Lastly, we should NEVER just blindly follow our leaders.

We should have leaders that inspire us to follow them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

...if the goal is to "protect the sanctimony of marriage" and not to discriminate based on prejudice, than I'll borrow a line from your friend and mine, the NRA.

Enforce the existing laws before passing new ones.

I have no problem enforcing it, but you do know it tends to be something like a $20 fine, right?

Besides, that's not my goal, I'm pulling a kallend here and pointing out logic issues without passing judgment.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

go back and reread your post with a skydiver's mind, and see how ironic it is.

[edit]
OK, that just applies to the first section. As to the second, well, it's one thing to follow your elected leader, it's quite another to become, as someone else put it, a nation of yes-men.

I support him when he's right and/or when the nation's survival is on the line. Other than that, it's up for grabs.
[/edit]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,435]

>But if the goal is to "protect the sanctimony of marriage" . . .

This had me laughing. Sanctimony means fake righteousness or hypocritical devotion. I figure it's a typo, but it's a perfect word to describe someone who defends Britney Spears' version of marriage over a gay couple that's wanted to marry for ten years and has been waiting for it to become legal.

[Michele 1]

Kennedy, I searched too. I couldn't find it either. I recall this discussion coming up earlier this week, and ran a search.

From Nightingale, it isn't in the State Constitution, but is in the Unruh Civil Rights act.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

From Nightingale, it isn't in the State Constitution, but is in the Unruh Civil Rights act.

Thanks, I was looking for it too.

I'm looking it up, but if I recall correctly, it's not even really in that act, it's judicial interpretation [addition?] to the Unruh.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Michele 1]

I don't know about the judicial interpretation for the Unruh act, but the references I could find directed me to CA Civil Code, 51-53. (Scroll to section ).

From what I understand, and in my real estate work, the Unruh deals pretty specifically with discrimination in lending laws, sales laws, and so forth. Not that I would, but it's in the exams, so I remember it.

Anyway, I can't find the whole text (I wish I could), and I can't find any case regarding it (not because it isn't there, just that I can't find it.).

Sorry...

Ciels-
Michele

*edit because I left out a very important sentence modifier....

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Kennedy 0]

You know, people keep saying the law and the state constitution are contradictory.

OK, I can't find it in the constitution.

People say two laws are contradictory.

Um, Unruh didn't even initially include sexual orientation. Now that it does, it still doesn't matter to this issue.

Someone tell me where this has anything to do with government services? And if this isn't the law that contradicts what the citizens voted for, what is?

What law was the mayor of SF following when he broke state law?
See Google Search

Quote

What is the Unruh Civil Rights Act?

The Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code sections 51 through51.3, provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations. California Civil Code section 51(b) describes the protections found under the Unruh Civil Rights Act:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. Civil Code section 51(b)

Who is Protected?
The language of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (see above) specifically outlaws discrimination in housing and public accommodations based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition.

While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically lists “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition” as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics.

The Act is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the basis of personal characteristics similar to those listed above

What Businesses Are Covered?
This law requires "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments."
This includes but is not limited to:
• Hotels and Motels
• Non-Profit Organizations
• Restaurants
• Theaters
• Hospitals
• Barber and Beauty Shops
• Housing Accommodations
• Public Agencies
• Retail Establishments.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Thanks anyway Michele, you put me on the right track. I'd rather see a state summary like the one I posted above, found HERE, than try to fumble through the legalese found in most civil rights legislation.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Michele 1]

Hi, Kennedy. Glad to help. I saw that link when I was running a search, but didn't open it (I have paranoia about PDF like some do about catching cooties....).

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~