Lindsay Lohan Calls Out Sarah Palin For Homophobia

[Casurf1978 0]

It's no representation, more like oppression. Since when do you allow a majority to vote away or curtail the rights of a minority. One of the principles of Democracy is that minorities enjoy basic human rights and that no government/majority should remove.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

It's NOT just because Lohan is a celebrity, but she's about to marry Samantha Ronson. Further, Ronson is probably the thing that's going to keep Lohan from killing herself with drugs and alcohol. Ronson has stated she's determined to keep Lohan sober and it actually seems to be working. See; http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=5475432

OK, I don't mean to change the subject, but I didn't see anything in that article about Ronson wanting to keep Lohan sober. All I saw was that Ronson is a "professional partier," but nothing about either of them being sober. (Did I miss something?)

[masterrig 1]

Does anyone really care what Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears thinks? They can't even control their own lives and stay out of trouble! Seems like, whenever the Hollywood folks get behind a candidate, that candidate flops, big-time. Like John Kerry and others. I have a hard time with bubble-headed bleach blondes trying to influence my decisions on candidates.


Chuck

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Personally, I think religion should have zero influence on the legal institute of civil unions.

completely agree, with the correction above

marriage - religious ceremony which should have nothing to do with government preferences

civil union - legal contract between two people that might have certain preferences attached to it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

It's NOT just because Lohan is a celebrity, but she's about to marry Samantha Ronson. Further, Ronson is probably the thing that's going to keep Lohan from killing herself with drugs and alcohol. Ronson has stated she's determined to keep Lohan sober and it actually seems to be working. See; http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=5475432

OK, I don't mean to change the subject, but I didn't see anything in that article about Ronson wanting to keep Lohan sober. All I saw was that Ronson is a "professional partier," but nothing about either of them being sober. (Did I miss something?)

You're right. Not explicitly stated in the article, but it's kinda what Ronson is known for.

Another;
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/lohans%20sober%20companion%20helped%20barrymore%20and%20olsen%20too_1076291

It's fairly well known in the entertainment industry.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

>So much for representation.
>Government by the people, for the people.

Yep - and a government of laws.

When interracial marriages were first allowed, most of the country opposed them. Do you think we did the right thing by allowing them, even though it was "activist judges ignoring the will of the people?"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I think religion should have zero influence on the legal institute of civil unions marriage.

completely agree, with the correction above

Religious institution of marriage - religious ceremony which should have nothing to do with government preferences

civil union Legal institution of marriage - legal contract between two people that might have certain preferences attached to it

It was fine the way it was. I differentiated between the legal and religious institutions of marriage. I see no need to attach a PC label to marriages; it's not an offensive term, and the two institutions generally involve the same participants in the same relationship.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Your opinion (and mine, too actually), but it seems to make a difference to many so what's the big deal?

just for simplicity for the masses call them something completely different rather than tack on adjectives

religious marriage vs secular marriage is silly

unions vs marriage is much simpler

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bigbadswoop 0]

Quote

is it abnormal for a heavily religous person to be homophobic?

Nope.... if the bibles says something, it must be true

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

A simpler solution is to get the government out of the business of marriage. Allow churches to marry people; government's only role should be to set up the civil union that goes along with marriage. Simpler for all involved, and your church can then define marriage however you see fit.

Bill, Correct me if I am wrong, you were married in the Catholic Church (which I am also a member of). Do you know that that was strictly a religious union? Did you forget about the marriage license required which is what made your marriage legal in eyes of the law?

In this entire discussion, I never mentioned my religious beliefs having anything to do with my opposition to changing the definition of 'marriage'. You and others assumed it.

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 2,400]

>Do you know that that was strictly a religious union? Did you forget about the
>marriage license required which is what made your marriage legal in eyes of the
>law?

Not at all! It was a two step process:

1) Get a "marriage license." This is not a marriage, but instead sort of a "permission slip" to get married. It's not valid until a priest signs it.

2) Get married in a church. Once the priest signed it, it became legal.

I advocate the exact same process, just with a small change:

1) Get a civil union at Town Hall. There is then a legal union between the two people for purposes of inheritance, child custody, property laws etc.

2) Get married in the church of your choice.

That way, you can call your marriage whatever you choose and do whatever you like in the church of your choice. All the government cares about is the form you filled out at Town Hall.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

It was fine the way it was. I differentiated between the legal and religious institutions of marriage. I see no need to attach a PC label to marriages; it's not an offensive term, and the two institutions generally involve the same participants in the same relationship.

If same sex marriage was nationally legalized, would churches be required to hold ceremonies? Could the couples sue churches for not observing federal law or could the church choose not to participate?

I know there would be some churches to accommodate. The differentiation between legal marriage and religious marriage just got me thinking about the actual legal implications.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Muenkel 0]

I agree.

_________________________________________
Chris

[quade 3]

Quote

If same sex marriage was nationally legalized, would churches be required to hold ceremonies?

No. Please see the First Amendment.

Churches are exempt from a number of laws that would infringe upon their religious beliefs. For instance, Priests being male only and the ability to discriminate on the basis of religion for official positions.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

>If same sex marriage was nationally legalized, would churches be required to
>hold ceremonies?

No more so than a synagogue is currently required to marry two catholics.

>Could the couples sue churches for not observing federal law . . . .

There would be no federal law. No law was passed in California legalizing gay marriage; the state supreme court just read the California Constitution and decided that the equal-rights provision covered same-sex marriages.

There may come a time in the future where the supreme court meets to hear a case where two women were denied the right to marry in a certain state, and their decision might be that that is an unconstitutional violation of their rights. If and when that occurs, no new law will be passed; it will be recognized that that is simply a right that US citizens have.

>or could the church choose not to participate?

Yes, just as they can choose to do so now.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

You're right. Not explicitly stated in the article, but it's kinda what Ronson is known for.

Oh, OK. I had never heard of her, but thanks for the link.

Guess I should keep up with Lindsay's blog, like airdvr does, so that I will know these things.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If same sex marriage was nationally legalized, would churches be required to hold ceremonies?

They currently aren't required to do so for heterosexual marriages. I don't see why that would need to change.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[RkyMtnHigh 0]

OH OH OH!!!! Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Simpson, and Nicole Richey and Brittney Spears are so credible that I want to follow whoever THEY choose to vote for!!!!

Those bitches are as dumb as fkn doorknobs and need to STFU!!!! and lay low...their only place on the planet is to look cute in pics in magazines.

_________________________________________

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

There -are- some issues that transcend what is simply "popular." Most civil rights issues fall into that category. If not, I think you'd find we'd still have slavery in some of the remaining parts of our once divided nation.

Maybe I should review Civics 101. Somewhere I got the idea of "majority rule".

Quote

A civilization isn't judged by how it treats the majority, but rather how it treats those with little representation.

How right you are. However, I fail to see where historical opinion comes into play in the democratic process as practiced in this country.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Who is Sarah Palin and people like her to judge and decide who somebody else can or can not find some piece of happiness with in this miserable, fucked up world?

I fail to see just what this has to do with "marriage".

Maybe somebody thinks that they need that acknowledgement from the state to be happy?

No . . . just to be admitted into emergency rooms when a loved one is about to die.

Why do I get the feeling you're not entirely up on the issue here? You really ought to read up on it....

Quade. You can read. You're more intelligent than that. My reply was strictly and solely in response to "find some piece of happiness".

Please don't insult my intelligence with your expansion into areas that were not addressed in the reply.

You do bring up an issue that I am not up to speed on though. Hospital access. I had no clue that there were laws governing that. As far as I knew, it was hospital policy that resticted patient access. Maybe my son's hospital was in violation of the law when his girlfriend was allowed to be with him when he was teetering on the edge of death.

Had you said anything about the legal issues of imposing living wills and making "pull-the-plug" type decisions, I would see you one and raise you:
Legal protection for the surviving SO when there is no will at all.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

OH OH OH!!!! Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Simpson, and Nicole Richey and Brittney Spears are so credible that I want to follow whoever THEY choose to vote for!!!!

Those bitches are as dumb as fkn doorknobs and need to STFU!!!! and lay low...their only place on the planet is to look cute in pics in magazines.

I take it you're not a big fan. Am I close to the mark?
I would have to argue with you though. At least doorknobs know which way to turn. Please don't insult doorknobs.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

>So much for representation.
>Government by the people, for the people.

Yep - and a government of laws.

When interracial marriages were first allowed, most of the country opposed them. Do you think we did the right thing by allowing them, even though it was "activist judges ignoring the will of the people?"

You said it. "Activist judges". As far as I know, judges are in the judicial branch, not the legislative.

Good, bad, or ugly, somehow the majority should rule.
Goes a long way toward preventing dictatorships and monarchies.

So by your way of thinking, small minorities should rule the country?

So turn it around and ponder:
Minorities rule. A minority wants to eliminate all religion. Good thing? Bad thing? Ugly thing?

See? So it could go either way.

See? A minority wants to eliminate all guns and that's a very real example. Should the majority (assuming a majority) that wants guns as per the right to bear arms be stripped?

It's nice to take the high road. But somewhere along the line you have to face up to the problems of a mixed approach to governing people. Someday it's going to be your toes that get stepped on. Please don't scream too loudly.


Besides all that, you deliberately ignored the point. We elect legisaltors to represent US, not their personal agendas. It's always nice to know just what their personal agendas are before we elect them.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[councilman24 36]

>So much for representation.
>Government by the people, for the people.


Is exactly what we have. For the most part we do NOT live in a participatory or direct democracy. We live in a representative democracy.


Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.

The representatives are chosen by the majority of the voters (as opposed to the majority of the population/eligible voters) in elections. This is known as 'Plurality'. While existing representative democracies hold such elections to choose representatives, in theory other methods, such as sortition (more closely aligned with direct democracy), could be used instead. Also, representatives sometimes hold the power to select other representatives, presidents, or other officers of government (indirect representation).

A representative democracy that also protects liberties is called a liberal democracy. One that does not is an illiberal democracy. There is no necessity that individual liberties are respected in a representative democracy. For example, the Communist states were technically representative democracies who regularly held elections.

Today, in liberal democracies, representatives are usually elected in free, secret-ballot, multi-party elections. The power of representatives in a liberal democracy is usually curtailed by a constitution (as in a constitutional republic or a constitutional monarchy) or other measures to balance representative power:
An independent judiciary, which may have the power to declare legislative acts unconstitutional (e.g. Supreme Court)
It may also provide for some deliberative democracy (e.g., Royal Commissions) or direct democracy measures (e.g., initiative, referendum, recall elections). However, these are not always binding and usually require some legislative action - legal power usually remains firmly with representatives. Source: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Representative+democracy

I am one of those elected representatives in my City. I am elected and "charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes,.." I'm not elected to do what a vocal minority want me to do and I'm not elected to even do what a majority of the voters might want me to do. I'm elected to do "what is in the people's best interest"

Case in point. Adult book and novelty store coming to town. We have a zoning code that identifies the restrictions on where these can go. We are NOT allowed to ban them completely under state and federal law. Store finds one of the few places in town allowed and wants to open up shop. We can not decide to not issue the special use permit needed for the store to open or the building permits to erect their signs, even though I'm sure the majority of the citizens would want us to. We would be sued, spend 10's of thousands of dollars, and lose. Spending this money would not be in the best interest. We CAN negotiate some additional conditions of operation that are agreeable to both parties.

We elect our representatives to make decisions on our behalf. Not to make the decisions that we (and maybe only me) think are right. If you (collective you of the whole electorate) don't like the decisions you un-elect them. Either through recall or declining to re-elect them. In addition often local and state decisions can be put to a referendum of the people. Either in response to an action or as a direct initiative. But in my state some of the worst decisions (IMHO) have been made by referendum.

The problem with this system is that representatives often DON'T do what is in the best interest of the city, county, state, country, but what will get them re-elected. Or get them the money to run for re-election.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

There would be no federal law. No law was passed in California legalizing gay marriage; the state supreme court just read the California Constitution and decided that the equal-rights provision covered same-sex marriages.

There may come a time in the future where the supreme court meets to hear a case where two women were denied the right to marry in a certain state, and their decision might be that that is an unconstitutional violation of their rights. If and when that occurs, no new law will be passed; it will be recognized that that is simply a right that US citizens have.

Here's an article you may find interesting. Written in 2004 but still applicable today, I think.

http://www.extremeink.com/susan/judicial.htm

And from teh same source, another article.
Click on the The Great Death-Defying California Recall Election link onthe lower right-hand side of the page. or:
http://www.extremeink.com/susan/c-recall.htm

Cheers

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The problem with this system is that representatives often DON'T do what is in the best interest of the city, county, state, country, but what will get them re-elected. Or get them the money to run for re-election.

...and therein lies the problem. They have the freedom to do so. I don't like it. Plain and simple. It seems to be a major source of discontent with the entire system.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239