Yes on prop 8 tactics

[quade 3]

Quote

Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege bestowed by religious and secular law.

While technically correct, I doubt you'd get most people other than lawyers to agree with you on the point.

Besides which, Amendment 9 still says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because it's not in the Constitution, doesn't mean a person doesn't have a particular "right." Now, whether or not that right is formally recognized by the state and given certain benefits and privileges as a result of that "right" is another matter, but it certainly falls within the "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I mean, hell, try finding the phrase "pursuit of Happiness" anywhere else listed as a right.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,435]

>How is it a "right" if you have to get a marriage license.

It is, in fact, a right that gays currently have. It may not be explicitly listed in any document, but it is an accepted right, and the California Supreme court has decided that the California Constitution, as it is now written, protects that right.

Proposition 8 would eliminate that right.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Yes, religious zealots such as the FLDS polygamists who were raped by the Texas social services department because they choose to love each other a little differently than one-man-one-woman marriage rules so dictate.

Funny, though, how all the no-on-8ers flap their jaws incessantly about the rights of homosexuals to marry but never say word one in defense of polygamy, or even utter a peep in protest over the horrific treatment accorded not only to the FLDS adults but to their children as well.

Any of you yappers care to shed a little light on that - ahem - oversight for me?

Sure. Read this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3190904;search_string=polygamy;#3190904

There's no reason why polygamists shouldn't be able to marry any consenting adult they wish, and the situation in Texas was handled horribly.

There's no reason why ANY OF US shouldn't be able to marry any consenting adult we wish. Period.

[TrophyHusband 0]

how can a proposition legally eliminate a right that is protected by a constitution? wouldn't you need an amendment to the constitution to do that? i would think that a constitutionally protected right couldn't be taken away just because the majority of the people vote for it. i'm guessing that even if prop 8 passes, it will eventually be overturned in court.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[n23x 0]

Quote

So we have a polygaphobe, and an uniformed one at that.

When I say:

Quote

Certainly you can see the difference between what adults choose to do with other adults, and what an adult chooses to do to a child.

and

Quote

That is NOT 2 or more consenting adults.

You're right, those statements are extremely polygaphobic. I agree that I was uninformed w/r/t the turnout of the FLDS case. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they'd like with other consenting adults.

However, I care less about polygamous relationships than I do monogamous relationships. It doesn't mean I'm against them in the least. But I'm sure you'll be classy enough to throw out another "feet against the coals" arguement. That was really good.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[billvon 2,435]

>how can a proposition legally eliminate a right that is protected by a
>constitution? wouldn't you need an amendment to the constitution to do
>that?

Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment.

[TrophyHusband 0]

you can probably find a thread about the flds thing if you wish to discuss that issue. just because someone didn't post about that doesn't mean anything about their position on gay marriage. if you have a problem with gay marriage, defend your position on that instead of blasting people for not being outraged at an unrelated event. as far as religious ceremonies, the goverment has no say-so in what you do. marry whoever you want and as many as you want. secular marriage is a different story. it is a legal arraingment between two adults. i see no problem with people wanting to limit the secular marriage to two people, but that's a different discussion. if you would like to discuss polygamy, i would be happy to in another thread.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

how can a proposition legally eliminate a right that is protected by a constitution? wouldn't you need an amendment to the constitution to do that? i would think that a constitutionally protected right couldn't be taken away just because the majority of the people vote for it. i'm guessing that even if prop 8 passes, it will eventually be overturned in court.

This proposition is to amend the California constitution.

[TrophyHusband 0]

thanks. i guess thats what i get for not actually reading it. i just assumed that is was a voter initiative.

i guess it would be difficult to find a contitutional amendment unconstitutional.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[robinheid 0]

sigh...

please point out to me where exactly I say I "have a problem with (homosexual) marriage."

you seem to be afflicted with the same hallucinatory interpretations of certain statements as your sister Jeanne, who insisted that I was anti-abortion even when i repeatedly affirmed my support therefore - just not in the way she was accustomed to hearing.

so have at it, trophy boy; show me where I say what you claim I say... or apologize for mistating my words so you could climb on your soapbox.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[TrophyHusband 0]

nothing to apologize for, i did not say you had a problem with it, i said "if you have a problem with gay marriage, defend your position".

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[billvon 2,435]

>you seem to be afflicted with the same hallucinatory interpretations . . .

Your one warning. If you cannot discuss a topic without personal attacks, please refrain from posting.

[robinheid 0]

arrgh... MY mistake...didn't see the "if."

MY apologies.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

thanks. i guess thats what i get for not actually reading it. i just assumed that is was a voter initiative.

i guess it would be difficult to find a contitutional amendment unconstitutional.

It is a voter initiative to amend the constitution, not to pass a law like voter initiatives usually are.

[TrophyHusband 0]

no problem.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>How is it a "right" if you have to get a marriage license.

It is, in fact, a right that gays currently have. It may not be explicitly listed in any document, but it is an accepted right, and the California Supreme court has decided that the California Constitution, as it is now written, protects that right.

Proposition 8 would eliminate that right.

I recall George writing that the policy of California was discriminatory against gays, i.e., you can't allow straights to do something and not gays. I don't recall reading about the fundamental right to marry because I don't recall anything in the opinion (it's a long one and it's been a few months) really pissing me off, which it would have done.

Quade also had a point about how the general population sees it as a right but lawyers may disagree. The general population saw going to the moon as easy, while engineers and scientists may have a different opinions.

Again, I am against Prop 8. But I'd like to see some actual reasonable arguments.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It is a voter initiative to amend the constitution, not to pass a law like voter initiatives usually are.

Seems like, aside from the bond issues, the initiatives are more often amendments than straight up legislation.

And yet it still only requires 50.01% to pass.

I'd like to see a bit of reform on our process to require the proposals to pass a bit more legal review before they're put on the ballot. Too many poorly written, vaguely written bills rushed to the ballot. It's particularly sad how sloppy the Prop 8 people were, even after the lesson from 2000.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Again, I am against Prop 8. But I'd like to see some actual reasonable arguments.

How much more vague can you be?

Marriage confers actual rights. It's not a benefit to visit your spouse in the hospital. Or the right not to testify against your spouse. Prop 8 takes away these rights that the state Supreme Court said apply to gay married couples.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And "we" are not "all saying the same thing." Pro-homosexual marriage people yap constantly abour their "rights" and the discrimination that should be abolished, but never yet have i heard any of them say anything in support of _other_ forms of non-traditional marriage except when their feet are held to the rhetorical fire as i did earlier in this thread.

Gays have been fighting this battle in California heavily for the past decade, just to deal with their desire to marry. Your suggestion that these efforts are hypocritical unless they also champion all vaguely similar rights is ludicrous. People fight first for their own rights, and then others. (Or if you're LDS, you take 10% from your members and spend it fighting against other people's rights)

It might be fair to criticize the ACLU, though I do not know their stance on polygamy. I do know it has no relevance to Prop 8, the matter at hand. (and one we'll probably have to vote again on in 2010 and 2012 or until one side wins decisively)

The polygamy question really does come down to a benefits question. I suspect that as long as financial benefits are tied to marriage, polygamy will never go anywhere, or the additional people will be second class spouses.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

None of this matters to polygaphobes, however, who like homophobes immediately use the "children at risk" argument to defend their bigotry.

WTH, dude? Nobody is saying anything about Polygamy and being against it and your ramming it down everybody's throat. The difference with your above statement is that when there is a "child at risk," in terms of the polygamy situation it means there really is a child PHYSICALLY at risk when there is a child involved (and unfortunately that happens in Polygamy). "Child at risk," in terms of homosexuality are mostly very church going folk who are worried about their prude kids hearing/seeing/being subjected to a society where gay people can be married and goes against everything they are trying to brain wash their kids into believing. Their child is in NO physical danger what so ever. The fact that you're even putting these situations on the same level of comparison makes me shudder at how out of touch you must really be.

Edited to add-- I have no problems with one adult doing whatever they want with another adult. Thats the whole point of this thread and prop 8. Now when it comes to underage kids, then that's wrong and I hope you see the difference. If the TX situation involved only consenting adults, then I think going in there with guns blazing might have been a bad choice (though I see where they came from in their actions when they thought it was children involved).

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[jdfreefly 1]

I am not so sure it is about hate. I think it is more likely this:

A complete and total lack of empathy from both sides of the argument.

Watching this play out is like watching a dog trying to play with a cat that is telling it to back off. The religious people don't understand what they are trying to take away from the gays, and the gays don't understand at all what marriage means to the religious.

A little empathy from both sides would go a long way to finding an amicable solution, but instead we are going to end up with one very pissed off group of people regardless of who wins.

I will say this, in SF the other day, in the middle of the worst rain storm I've seen all year, there were 2 people on a highway overpass with a yes on prop 8 sign standing about five feet away from 2 people with a no on prop 8 sign. It's cool to see people so devoted to a cause, but I wish people were this passionate about our education system or funding alternative energy.

-daless

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[robinheid 0]

"Nobody is saying anything about Polygamy and being against it"

that's precisely my point, Ashley.

The real issue is not whether or not homosexuals get to marry or not but what exactly should the definition of marriage be, especially with all of the associated contractual complications that accrue thereto.

And the fact that polygamy is NOT being discussed is in fact a serious flaw in the argument that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

It is in fact when people of differing views come together to protect each other's liberty that we have the best effects for everyone and that is precisely why I think the way to a more tolerant future is for the homosexual community to ally itself with the polygamist community on this subject.

In terms of social mores, these two groups are on opposite ends of the political spectrum but they both suffer similarly because their partnership practices do not match those of the majority.

That is why I chose to turn billvon's street sign whimpering into something more substantial and that is figuring out a more intelligent and more inclusive way to apply public policy to key social issues.

I predict that Proposition 8 will win big because, to use your intriguing imagery, people are tired of getting "gay rights" rammed down everybody's throats.

What should be done here is an integrated call for "fair access" to marriage's contractual rights by ALL partnership arrangements at variance with those of the majority, and the general blindness and/or unwillingness of the homosexual community and its supporters to include, reach out to or even acknowledge the legitimacy of other non-traditional partnerships as they seek legal approval for THEIR needs is what is stalling the effort.

It is fundamentally unfair that homosexual couples and polygamous family units cannot avail themselves of the contractual and legislative benefits accessible to traditionally married couples: tax breaks, inheritance, hospital visitation, health care and others.

That, again, is why I turned a low-level whimper about street signs into a teaching moment about the larger issue: Until supporters of homosexual marriage expand their narrow view of the issue, and start seeing as allies the very people they see now as enemies, they will for the most part continue to be frustrated in their efforts to achieve what is in fact a reasonable state of fairness.

And really, the ignorance of the homosexual marriage supporters to the injustices faced by polygamists is breathtaking and you Ashley did it yourself with your own argument, to wit:


" 'Child at risk,' in terms of homosexuality are mostly very church going folk who are worried about their prude kids hearing/seeing/being subjected to a society where gay people can be married and goes against everything they are trying to brain wash their kids into believing. Their child is in NO physical danger what so ever. The fact that you're even putting these situations on the same level of comparison makes me shudder at how out of touch you must really be."

You see, a big part of the Texas social services attack on the FLDS was its insistence that the "psychological environment" in which the children (male and female) lived was what put them at risk, not any physical risk.

Or to riff on your words, despite the fact all of these children were being very well taken care of by their non-traditional parents, the state thugs insisted that their very presence within those non-traditiional family units "subjected these kids to hearing/seeing/being in a society where multiple people can be married, which goes against everything they are trying to brain wash their kids into believing."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

And who is really out of touch here, do you think?

So do you now see the trap of intolerance and ignorance into which several of the pro-homosexual marriage posters on this thread have fallen?

They attacked the FLDS people with the same arguments and bigotry to which homosexual couples have long been subjected - and even borrowed the language of their oppressors.

And sorry to disillusion you but the "whole point" of this thread initially was to complain about "Yes on 8" political tactics, not discuss the merits of the proposition.

I chose to move that low-brow discussion to a higher level that actually speaks to the fundamental issues involved and how a broadening of our worldview can help us actually live by the credo set forth in the Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, not just the majority.

robin heid

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[quade 3]

The problem comes from the ambiguous nature of our language and what it means to be "married." Depending on your point of view a marriage is or is not a religious experience at all. Depending on your point of view it does or does not have to even take place between a man and a woman (common law marriage) for certain legal rights to be granted to both parties involved.

Further, I really "don't understand at all what marriage means to the religious" especially since a number of highly religious positions aren't married at all, the Pope and nuns for example.

Being religious and being married have nothing to do with one another. It's certainly possible to be either, neither or both.

Using religion to somehow defend this homophobic attempt to take away the rights of others is silly and yet . . . dayum it works when people don't actually think about it and just follow what their leaders tell them to do.

I find the whole thing just sad.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

In terms of social mores, these two groups are on opposite ends of the political spectrum but they both suffer similarly because their partnership practices do not match those of the majority.

Yeaaa, no not the same imo.

Rights, benefits, whatever--There is a big difference between allowing six people the right not to testify against one-and-the-same spouse and allowing six spouses to visit their shared-spouse in the hospital (Hospital rooms are small & cramped as it is!).

I'm passing out cookies to all the heteros and homo Harry wants one too, so I give him one. Now poly Paul wants four cookies because I gave Harry one just like I gave everyone else?

I appreciate your position and you're correct I haven't really thought too much about the right of polygamists to marry multiple (adult) partners. My initial thoughts are I'd be fine with it so long as their "rights" and "benefits" were equal to (and not exceeding) every other marriage.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I predict that Proposition 8 will win big because, to use your intriguing imagery, people are tired of getting "gay rights" rammed down everybody's throats.

sounds like you've stopped pretending you don't have a stance on it. Given that Prop 8 and 12 were introduced by the other side, who's doing the ramming, exactly?

You're suggesting that there is a Bradley effect on gay rights polling, making the current 5 pt lead for the No side false. I doubt you'll see that come to fruition.

The Obama vote in CA will be heavy - the fact that blacks slightly favor Prop 8 (a disgrace in it own) is outweighed by the rest of his supporters in this state.