Profile
Search
Register
Log in
*sigh* Gay Marriage Ban Upheld
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
ObliO



Joined: 20 Nov 2002
Posts: 766
Location: mexican war streets
 Reply with quote  

How about if you are straight and you have a significant other, you don't get married until its allowed for everyone? I have been with my partner cathie for 13 years and we may never get married if it means inequality. It may be the most significant civil rights issue of our generation. It would be like voluntarily drinking from the whites only water fountain and saying " I think the government needs to let those black folk drink clean water...but I'm sure glad I got my drinks"

Straight folk who support gay rights, stop getting married.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 12:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Embryo, it doesn't matter whether it happens in the courts or through laws. It just needs to happen. The courts actually SHOULD be the ones standing up for gay marriage, because it they are supposed to protect minorities from majority oppression. That they passed on this means that they aren't doing their job.

I find it really patronizing that you could even write that crap.

You're saying gay people don't deserve gay marriage rights because they in your estimation...are not working hard enough. That's a bullshit position to take. If there's even one case of someone working their balls off in Cali on gay rights--then you're wrong.

Equal Rights should not be merit based. That's completely goofy.

And I also think it's even goofier that you cite as your justification for your viewpoint "well this one gay guy said it, so it must be right". Well this one gay girl says you're full of crap. So I guess it evens out, and you should go back to the drawing board :)


First of all, futur, I never said I agreed with this because "one gay guy said it". I said specifically that Sullivan had convinced me, which is not the same as simply adopting his point of view. Your argument, for example, is extremely unconvincing, so as of now I'm not compelled to consider changing my view to yours.

Secondly, the job of the courts is absolutely NOT to "protect" anyone's rights. The job of the courts is to interpret and enforce the law. Period. In this case, a law was clearly passed by a majority of voters in California. It's the Court's job in this case to decide if that law was legal. California has a (really, really) stupid proposition system, and I agree that there's no way this law should have been able to be passed in such a way. But, it was, and it was passed legally. The legal argument that's being made here is extremely murky and hinges on (as far as I understand) what amounts to a substantial constitutional change versus an interpretive one. Even if the court had ruled against prop 8, this standard is highly problematic and would lead to COMPLETELY different interpretations of the ruling based on your preferred outcome. This isn't just bad for people's attitudes regarding gay folks, it's bad for democracy. Legislation is designed to create law that is accepted as legitimate even by people who don't agree with it. That's why we have a legislative process. This has got to be hashed out legislatively.


Quote:

Equal Rights should not be merit based. That's completely goofy.


I'd agree except that "rights" is a legal and theoretical construct, as is "equal" vis a vis "rights". I actually don't think that gay folks should be considered "equal" under the law; I believe they should be given special protection, as are other oppressed minority groups. So it's just nowhere near as simple as you are making it out to be.

Unfortunately, and this is where I ultimately end up after thinking this through, it doesn't matter how rights "should" be allocated or legally considered. What -really- matters (more than the rights of gay folks in California) is how the entire country continues to move on this issue, which is what will eventually determine the legal status of gay folks in ALL 50 states. Movement leftwards has been steady, but we cannot take that for granted. The less opportunity people have to be involved in the process of giving gay folks equal rights, the less willing they will be in accepting change or even to get involved and push things in that direction.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 12:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

leifkolt wrote:
Embryo...

I get your point.

Try looking at it this way though...

replace gay people getting married with black people getting the right to vote.

Now if the same legal bullshit went down, would you still feel the same?

Your justifications are very political. Politics have a purpose but not when something is morally wrong.

Fuck the politics, equality now.


Leifkolt,

My arguments aren't any less political than yours. Your arguments are just as political. But the political theory behind your arguments is "short-term gains for justice are to be had regardless of all other considerations." That's fine, but it is a political argument. My theory, which I borrowed from Dr King a long time ago, is basically "the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice."

Thinking long-term is really, really important for radical movements, because justice is had slowly. And unless the plan is to take over the government and impose radical justice by force, the only way to ever -see- it, is to convince everyone else (or, in a democracy, a majority, which is very relevant here) that your concept of justice is correct. That's my "political" analysis of the situation.

So "fuck the politics, equality now" doesn't strike me as the principled, informed, radical, stick-it-to-the-man mantra that it might seem to you. It strikes me as shortsighted, unlikely to succeed and likely to alienate the very people whom you -need- to convince to ever actually see "equality".
Post Tue May 26, 2009 12:51 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

Also, this is situation is nowhere near being analogous to suffrage. On so many levels. Miscegenation, absolutely. Not suffrage.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 12:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

The best way to have it is to have it, and then everyone sees that the world didn't end because of it. Look at the ripple effect Iowa had on other states. That's going to be way more effective than having a vote about it.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 12:57 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
leifkolt



Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 293
Location: Where good people go to die.
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

this is situation is nowhere near being analogous to suffrage


Agreed. Just trying to explain my view.



Without people who have the 'immediate right now lets get this passed' mentality radical movements have no fire under their ass or passion.

If everyone looked at the long term only than who motivates a movement in the now?
Post Tue May 26, 2009 12:59 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
The best way to have it is to have it, and then everyone sees that the world didn't end because of it. Look at the ripple effect Iowa had on other states. That's going to be way more effective than having a vote about it.


But Iowa's ban was overturned via legislative action, futurist. If it had been a courts decision, there would have been an enormous backlash (just as there would have been if prop 8 had been overturned -- holy lord, it would have been huge). After the Massachusetts SJC ruling, DOMA laws were passed in friggin an enormous number of states as a direct result, which established a huge obstacle to marriage rights that stands to this very day. Legislative action is the way forward.


Last edited by Embryo on Tue May 26, 2009 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue May 26, 2009 1:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

leifkolt wrote:

Quote:

this is situation is nowhere near being analogous to suffrage


Agreed. Just trying to explain my view.



Without people who have the 'immediate right now lets get this passed' mentality radical movements have no fire under their ass or passion.

If everyone looked at the long term only than who motivates a movement in the now?


I disagree with you. Radical movements that don't wholly understand the long-term nature of working for change will self-destruct internally and/or externally. A movement that understands this will set attainable goals and will move steadily forward in a way that a naive radical movement setting unattainable goals just plain can't.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 1:06 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6498
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Embryo wrote:
But Iowa's ban was overturned via legislative action, futurist. If it had been a courts decision, there would have been an enormous backlash (just as there would have been if prop 8 had been overturned -- holy lord, it would have been huge).

I don't have time right now to get into this discussion yet again on here. (Someone bump the other thread(s.)) But I'm with Furturist, and disagree with Embryo.

Plus, Embryo, you are wrong about Iowa. It was a court decision. Since there has not been an "enormous backlash" that means that your main point is completely incorrect, right?
Post Tue May 26, 2009 1:39 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
McTools



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 181
 Reply with quote  

[quote="leifkolt"]
Quote:


The state should stay out of this anyway as it is a Church issue. Let each church decide if certain people can get married, than if you can't get married in that church, that religion isn't for you obviously... so switch.


This is the key, marriage is invented and regulated by religions. The idea that the state can control or have a say in this issue, and even that a major can marry people has always stumped me. Aren't weddings a operation of the church? Isn't this the same instatution that say's homosexualys go to hell? Isn't this whole discusion a light house trying to show us that government and religion is bonded in a very uncomfertible way?

A marriage is a bonding of your finances, and then if your religious, you believe it's a bonding of your two souls for eternity in the eyes of god. My little brothers gay, he's a polothistic (A Religion that has multiple gods.) yogi who's working on his masters, but he still talks about marriage. I don't understand this, with the way christianity has been bonded with our entire country, I feel it has really made social confussion. I have a hard enough time explaining to him that just cuz he's not monothiestic(A Religion with one main god.), doesn't mean he's not following a religion. The adverage American knows that the poly religions are old tales that help people understand, explain and cope with the ancient world, but they hold the mono's with a much higher regard as if their tales might still be true. And that is what makes this discussion possible.

Like homeboy said, if you can't get married, change religions! If it's a matter of getting the church to change it's ethics, do some book work and look at the history of marriage and the books in the judaha/christian religions and how they were changed over time, that's where your amo should start stacking. Very interesting stuff.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 1:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

the mean wrote:
Embryo wrote:
But Iowa's ban was overturned via legislative action, futurist. If it had been a courts decision, there would have been an enormous backlash (just as there would have been if prop 8 had been overturned -- holy lord, it would have been huge).

I don't have time right now to get into this discussion yet again on here. (Someone bump the other thread(s.)) But I'm with Furturist, and disagree with Embryo.

Plus, Embryo, you are wrong about Iowa. It was a court decision. Since there has not been an "enormous backlash" that means that your main point is completely incorrect, right?
Post Tue May 26, 2009 1:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

Sorry,im trying to post on a Kindle which it turns out was a dumb idea. mean is right but the reason i was confused is that the court's ruling was immediately overshadowed by the legislature's refusal to do anything to overturn the ruling. ultimately that became the bigger story. so i would argue that's the reason there hasn't been a huge backlash from iowa. also that the outrage has indeed dwindled somewhat.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 1:53 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6498
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Embryo wrote:
Sorry,im trying to post on a Kindle which it turns out was a dumb idea. mean is right but the reason i was confused is that the court's ruling was immediately overshadowed by the legislature's refusal to do anything to overturn the ruling. ultimately that became the bigger story. so i would argue that's the reason there hasn't been a huge backlash from iowa. also that the outrage has indeed dwindled somewhat.

I have no idea what a Kindle is. Regardless, if you google [Iowa gay marriage] there are a bunch of stories about the supreme court decision, and not much (if anything) about the legislature's refusal to do anything to overturn it. I'm not buying the explanation of that being the "bigger story."
Post Tue May 26, 2009 1:57 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

Kindle = amazon.com ebook reader with rudimentary web functionality.

Could you link me to the results page that you feel is giving you such a cohesive cross-section of coverage as to support your counterargument? Because "iowa gay marriage" only yields a hodgepodge of results when I do it, most not at all about the specifics of how it came to be, and many actually about California. Please keep in mind also that since the actual facts are that the court overturned the law this will probably be more prominently featured in retrospective stories than the subsequent legislative grandstanding (which at the time I maintain was higher-profile because it was far more dramatic).

Anyway, this has only a tangential relationship to my argument, which is that it is better for democracy and for the long-term conversion of people to supporting gay rights for the people to grant them and not for the courts to dictate them. EVEN if there is a legal basis for doing so. And keeping in mind that I don't oppose judicial rulings abolishing inequal treatment of GLBT persons -- I just prefer legislative ones.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 2:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

mindboogling. Were you just not watching the news much when Iowa happened? The bulk of the coverage was about the court decision, because that's what happened first, and that's what most people read about. Even the thread here was about the court decision.

I think the burden of proof is on you, not the mean. It sounds to me like you're trying to contort things into your worldview rather than consider that you are wrong.

The California ruling sets a bad precendent, and I hope that it gets appealed. People should not be able to take away others rights, just because there is more of them. It's not the ideals that this country is about. It's bullying, plain and simple.


Last edited by futuristxen on Tue May 26, 2009 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue May 26, 2009 2:45 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:59 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon