Same-Sex Marriage Update

Toughy · 08-06-2010, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betenoire

Really, Toughy? I can't tell if you're just fucking with me or not...but it's because of Canada that the whole "judicial meddling" thing is in your Constitution?

Break it down for a girl, wouldjaplease?

laughin............I'm just fucking with ya woman!!!....laughin..............I guess I didn't put enough of those smiley things in there cuz it was late when I posted.......

(Blame Canada!.....ya know the South Park movie about everything being the fault of Canada and we should invade and blow Canada open....)

betenoire · 08-06-2010, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toughy

laughin............I'm just fucking with ya woman!!!....laughin..............I guess I didn't put enough of those smiley things in there cuz it was late when I posted.......

(Blame Canada!.....ya know the South Park movie about everything being the fault of Canada and we should invade and blow Canada open....)

Ah, there she is. Kept me up all night researching to find evidence of something that never existed! Why, I oughta....

I did get the South Park reference, I'm a fan of the show.

That'll teach me to take things at face value!

(You people are just jealous because Canada is so nifty.)

JustJo · 08-06-2010, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betenoire

(You people are just jealous because Canada is so nifty.)

Yes...cuz not only can you get married, but you also have Violet Crumble bars, which somehow YOU have and we don't, even though they're made in Australia. It's unfair. (sob)

I used to ask a Canadian friend to bring me some every time she visited, but with my memory I always callled them Lavender Smashies. Good thing she knew me well enough to understand.

key · 08-06-2010, 08:09 AM

I find it disappointing how very few politicians (especially our liberal "equal rights for all" politicians, and more especially our first minority President) have made public statements about this historic federal ruling.

Not that I think it will make a difference, but it might be a good time to call the Whitehouse and ask them to speak up. In case you care to, call the comment line at 202-456-1111.

All that negative stuff being said. Hoooooraaaaaaaay. I may actually be able to get married soon....................now to find someone to marry!

MsTinkerbelly · 08-06-2010, 12:43 PM

First Maggie Gallagher, now Debra Saunders: Another shocking display of ignorance in the San Francisco Chronicle
(The San Francisco Chronicle is on a roll, following Judge Walker’s historic ruling striking down Prop 8. On Thursday, they went full FOX News, publishing Maggie Gallagher’s Red Dawn op-ed warning of a “Soviet-style” government takeover of marriage. Not to be outdone, Debra Saunders also published a column in the Chron on Thursday revealing her failure to understand basic civics, as Brian Devine demonstrates below. Of course, that’s not very surprising coming from Gallagher and Saunders. What is surprising is why the Chronicle wastes so much ink on such ignorance. Just another “fair and balanced” #FAIL. — Eden James)

By Brian Devine

The San Francisco Chronicle’s conservative commentator, Debra J. Saunders, published a column about Judge Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8. Her article is a shocking display of a lack of understanding of the United States Constitution and the role of the independent Judicial branch in our system of government:

So one judge overturned a measure approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008 and upheld by the California Supreme Court in a 6-1 ruling.

Some Californians will see this decision as the work of an elitist gay judge imposing his preordained political views on voters.

And then she goes on to describe why she’s one of those “Some Californians.”

Debra Saunders must have been absent on the day her Civics class taught the most important case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, so let’s take a walk back in time. In 1803, the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison. This case articulated the Judiciary’s power of “judicial review,” the power to decide the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government (a law passed by the Legislative branch or an action by the Executive branch.) Ever since then, every citizen’s rights have been protected by the Court’s power of judicial review. The reason judicial review exists is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the “tyranny of the majority.” In our system of government, the majority does not get to take away rights that are protected by the Constitution from a minority group, no matter how unpopular that group is.
Using the power of judicial review, our Courts have decided several controversial issues and have forced the majority to accept ideas with which it vehemently disagrees. Ideas like school integration. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that laws that created segregated schools violated the Equal Protection rights of racial minorities. Like Proposition 8, those laws were passed with a majority of people supporting them. And like Proposition 8, those laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority.

Another idea popular among the majority was prohibiting inter-racial marriage. In the 1950′s and 1960s, most people believed that non-white people should be prohibited from marrying white people. Several states (including California) passed laws making interracial marriages illegal. These laws were very popular and passed with a majority of the people’s representatives. They were based on many of the same arguments on which Proposition 8 is based (fear of the slippery slope: absurd arguments like “if black people can marry white people, how long before people can marry dogs?”) But the laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority. And in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage.

Our history is rich with cases where the Courts have overturned the will of the majority and protected the rights of the minority. In Debra Saunders’ ideal world, however, these cases would not exist. In Debra Saunders’ world, Brown v. Board of Education would have been decided the other way, leaving the dreadful Plessy v. Ferguson decision to be the law of the land and permitting racial segregation. In Debra Saunders’ world, Loving v. Virginia would have been decided the other way, and states would be free to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

Is this really the world in which Debra Saunders wants to live? As a straight, white, and relatively affluent person, it’s easy for Debra Saunders to say that she doesn’t need the Courts to protect her rights. But that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? The Courts are there to protect the rights of those who are least liked by society, not to blindly enforce the will of the majority.

MsTinkerbelly · 08-06-2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by key

I find it disappointing how very few politicians (especially our liberal "equal rights for all" politicians, and more especially our first minority President) have made public statements about this historic federal ruling.

Not that I think it will make a difference, but it might be a good time to call the Whitehouse and ask them to speak up. In case you care to, call the comment line at 202-456-1111.

All that negative stuff being said. Hoooooraaaaaaaay. I may actually be able to get married soon....................now to find someone to marry!

Good luck with that!!

Leader · 08-06-2010, 03:19 PM

as only Jon Stewart / the Daly Show can...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...lifornigaytion

Cyclopea · 08-06-2010, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leader

as only Jon Stewart / the Daly Show can...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...lifornigaytion

That was fantastic- LMAO

Colbert was hilarious too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_673097.html

AtLast · 08-06-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Good luck with that!!

Really! But the mid-terms are coming up. Dems arn't going to touch giving praise. The GOP is hot on the tax-cut trail and wanting to scare everyone about the deficit. Neither wants to deal with this now.

Obama has always stated he opposes same-sex marriage (he's a man and a woman only, rather Christian kinda guy) and has only spoken support for civil/domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

I kind of like the quiet. Feels more like this is starting to be viewed as a non-issue in many ways, as in [I]sort of normal[/I].

JustJo · 08-06-2010, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Obama has always stated he opposes same-sex marriage (he's a man and a woman only, rather Christian kinda guy) and has only spoken support for civil/domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

I kind of like the quiet. Feels more like this is starting to be viewed as a non-issue in many ways, as in [I]sort of normal[/I].

While Obama has not supported same sex marriage specifically, he is for some very fundamental protections with regard to property rights, federal benefits, etc. for same sex civil unions. It's not perfect, but it's a far cry better than we've seen before now. Maybe I'm settling, but I'd take it....

Here's a link to a good summary.

theoddz · 08-06-2010, 04:12 PM

I don't know if this has been posted or not yet:

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.[12] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

It was kind of nice to read what this lovely Lady had to say about this issue, and to know that she is proud to have her own case quoted and associated with our cause.

~Theo~

Soon · 08-06-2010, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Really! But the mid-terms are coming up. Dems arn't going to touch giving praise. The GOP is hot on the tax-cut trail and wanting to scare everyone about the deficit. Neither wants to deal with this now.

Obama has always stated he opposes same-sex marriage (he's a man and a woman only, rather Christian kinda guy) and has only spoken support for civil/domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

I kind of like the quiet. Feels more like this is starting to be viewed as a non-issue in many ways, as in [I]sort of normal[/I].

That is just not true and I posted earlier (Post 317) about his unequivocal PUBLIC support for same sex marriage when he was running for Senator.

He, unfortunately, changed his position b/w his time as Senator and his Presidential run.

He also belonged, when living in Chicago, to the United Church of Christ which, in 2005, "became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage officially when its general synod passed a resolution on Monday affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/na.../05church.html

08-06-2010, 08:09 AM	#4
key Member How Do You Identify?: androgynous, gender-queer, butch Preferred Pronoun?: depends on person addressing me Relationship Status: merrily single hopefully married one day Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: san francisco, ca and chama, nm Posts: 197 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 59 Thanked 430 Times in 136 Posts Rep Power: 885764	Not to rain on our Gay Parade, but I find it disappointing how very few politicians (especially our liberal "equal rights for all" politicians, and more especially our first minority President) have made public statements about this historic federal ruling. Not that I think it will make a difference, but it might be a good time to call the Whitehouse and ask them to speak up. In case you care to, call the comment line at 202-456-1111. All that negative stuff being said. Hoooooraaaaaaaay. I may actually be able to get married soon....................now to find someone to marry! __________________ http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...ariation6t.jpg

08-06-2010, 12:43 PM	#5
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,907 Times in 5,017 Posts Rep Power: 0	From the Prop 8 blog First Maggie Gallagher, now Debra Saunders: Another shocking display of ignorance in the San Francisco Chronicle (The San Francisco Chronicle is on a roll, following Judge Walker’s historic ruling striking down Prop 8. On Thursday, they went full FOX News, publishing Maggie Gallagher’s Red Dawn op-ed warning of a “Soviet-style” government takeover of marriage. Not to be outdone, Debra Saunders also published a column in the Chron on Thursday revealing her failure to understand basic civics, as Brian Devine demonstrates below. Of course, that’s not very surprising coming from Gallagher and Saunders. What is surprising is why the Chronicle wastes so much ink on such ignorance. Just another “fair and balanced” #FAIL. — Eden James) By Brian Devine The San Francisco Chronicle’s conservative commentator, Debra J. Saunders, published a column about Judge Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8. Her article is a shocking display of a lack of understanding of the United States Constitution and the role of the independent Judicial branch in our system of government: So one judge overturned a measure approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008 and upheld by the California Supreme Court in a 6-1 ruling. Some Californians will see this decision as the work of an elitist gay judge imposing his preordained political views on voters. And then she goes on to describe why she’s one of those “Some Californians.” Debra Saunders must have been absent on the day her Civics class taught the most important case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, so let’s take a walk back in time. In 1803, the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison. This case articulated the Judiciary’s power of “judicial review,” the power to decide the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government (a law passed by the Legislative branch or an action by the Executive branch.) Ever since then, every citizen’s rights have been protected by the Court’s power of judicial review. The reason judicial review exists is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the “tyranny of the majority.” In our system of government, the majority does not get to take away rights that are protected by the Constitution from a minority group, no matter how unpopular that group is. Using the power of judicial review, our Courts have decided several controversial issues and have forced the majority to accept ideas with which it vehemently disagrees. Ideas like school integration. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that laws that created segregated schools violated the Equal Protection rights of racial minorities. Like Proposition 8, those laws were passed with a majority of people supporting them. And like Proposition 8, those laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority. Another idea popular among the majority was prohibiting inter-racial marriage. In the 1950′s and 1960s, most people believed that non-white people should be prohibited from marrying white people. Several states (including California) passed laws making interracial marriages illegal. These laws were very popular and passed with a majority of the people’s representatives. They were based on many of the same arguments on which Proposition 8 is based (fear of the slippery slope: absurd arguments like “if black people can marry white people, how long before people can marry dogs?”) But the laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority. And in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Our history is rich with cases where the Courts have overturned the will of the majority and protected the rights of the minority. In Debra Saunders’ ideal world, however, these cases would not exist. In Debra Saunders’ world, Brown v. Board of Education would have been decided the other way, leaving the dreadful Plessy v. Ferguson decision to be the law of the land and permitting racial segregation. In Debra Saunders’ world, Loving v. Virginia would have been decided the other way, and states would be free to prohibit inter-racial marriages. Is this really the world in which Debra Saunders wants to live? As a straight, white, and relatively affluent person, it’s easy for Debra Saunders to say that she doesn’t need the Courts to protect her rights. But that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? The Courts are there to protect the rights of those who are least liked by society, not to blindly enforce the will of the majority.

08-06-2010, 03:19 PM	#7
Leader Junior Member How Do You Identify?: Butch Relationship Status: Single Join Date: May 2010 Location: San Francisco Posts: 79 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 197 Thanked 205 Times in 53 Posts Rep Power: 582189	the proper perspective as only Jon Stewart / the Daly Show can... http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...lifornigaytion __________________ . I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read, and all the friends I want to see. - John Burroughs Last edited by Leader; 08-06-2010 at 03:20 PM. Reason: apparently embed codes that are not youtube don't work here..

08-06-2010, 04:12 PM	#11
theoddz Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Cranky Old Poop Preferred Pronoun?: Mr. Beast Relationship Status: Married Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Central Texas Posts: 3,540 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 11,139 Thanked 9,930 Times in 2,512 Posts Rep Power: 21474855	I don't know if this has been posted or not yet: On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.[12] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows: “Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about." It was kind of nice to read what this lovely Lady had to say about this issue, and to know that she is proud to have her own case quoted and associated with our cause. *~Theo~* __________________ *"All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost."* -- J. R. R. Tolkien