Massive Setback For American Civil Liberties

[jaylemurph]

Alright, let me explain as best I can. In California and Florida, laws were passed outlawing gay marriage. However, judges ruled the laws unconstitutional and overturned them. This election they were voting on putting the laws into the state constitutions, so that judges could not overturn them. These state constitutional amendments are in conflict with our national constitution however, which is why many, wish to nationally outlaw gay marriage. A national constitutional amendment was not passed though.

See BM -- this is where your explanation of of America as not a democracy in another thread would be useful: we have the Constitution to protect individual civil rights even in the teeth of what the majority wants.

--Jaylemurph

[Luziadus]

No, and you just made my point. We would never put murder up for vote, because it is immoral. Likewise we should never put discrimination up for vote, because it also is immoral.

Are you saying homossexuality is imoral??

Damn then Nature is wrong and against Bible,the Nature that All God Powerfull in the Sky created on Earth,damn then God was imoral by creating Nature who permits homossexuality between animals too,.....how imoral are they,.....yucc....I think God should read the Bible next time He creates something LOL

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Three points.

-You clearly don't understand our system of law and principle.

-I didn't and don't support Barack Obama.

-Save your tears for the many gays who lost their constitutional rights yesterday.

I understand plenty young man. This seems to be a personal issue with you and you have lost perspective.

I'll tell you what happened. The gays got saved from the pain in the rear of divorce. Righteous indignity doesn't suit you.

Boo ya!

[conspiracysrus]

i find it strange, that people who wanna live 2gether in a society where sexual orientation is still big news.

would care what that society thinks about their rights anyway? its like a slave asking its master if they would give their blessing for overtime.

who cares what crooked politicians think?

[momentarylapseofreason]

These people pay their taxes too !

But yet they don't get equal rights ?

Disgusting .

It's right out discrimination !!

[BlindMessiah]

Are you saying homossexuality is imoral??

Damn then Nature is wrong and against Bible,the Nature that All God Powerfull in the Sky created on Earth,damn then God was imoral by creating Nature who permits homossexuality between animals too,.....how imoral are they,.....yucc....I think God should read the Bible next time He creates something LOL

Good god, learn to read. I said outlawing gay marriage is immoral.

[jaylemurph]

I understand plenty young man. This seems to be a personal issue with you and you have lost perspective.

I'll tell you what happened. The gays got saved from the pain in the rear of divorce. Righteous indignity doesn't suit you.

Boo ya!

What utter bull, Eric. I'm rather shocked at hearing you support something quite so cack-headed as denying people basic use of the courts system.

Having gone through a messy break-up with someone that I lived with for years, it would have been incredibly useful to have recourse to court divorce proceedings. But I didn't and suffered substantially for it.

And I'll thank you to to give up your pretension to condescending "protections": I'm more than fully able to take care of myself. So is the rest of the gay community.

--Jaylemurph

edit: Frankly, I don't see much point in keeping this thread open. I don't feel like bigots ought to have an opportunity to air their views with equanimity, and both sides are inevitably only going to work themselves up into a lather. I don't think anyone's going to walk away from this thread with a different attitude then when they came in.

Edited November 5, 2008 by jaylemurph

[BlindMessiah]

See BM -- this is where your explanation of of America as not a democracy in another thread would be useful: we have the Constitution to protect individual civil rights even in the teeth of what the majority wants.

--Jaylemurph

Which is why it's so important to elect representatives who will faithfully follow every word of the constitution, otherwise we get this vile agenda passed into law.

[Luziadus]

Love doenst mean that you have to be with a partner of opposite sex,Love is what ou feel by other people no matter sex,color skin,religious views......

Here in Portugal,politics decided by their own against gay marriage (it was more disgusting),than listening to people opinion.

If I was gay and cannot marriage with my Love then I would stop paying taxes to a State that doesnt gave my rights,or quit my nationality.

[BlindMessiah]

I understand plenty young man.

Clearly you don't, old man, if you believe America to be a democracy.

This seems to be a personal issue with you and you have lost perspective.

Yes, freedom is a very personal issue with me.

I'll tell you what happened. The gays got saved from the pain in the rear of divorce. Righteous indignity doesn't suit you.

Yes, and segregation was a good thing because it saved African Americans from the pain of our poorly run education system. I think we all know what suits you.

[LogicalPiccolo]

I disagree. The constitution prohibits discrimination even in the case of majority desire to discriminate. I don't see how these are in line with our national constitution.

Well, I never said anything about the Constitution. And I never agreed that the decision made was in line with it.

I said the system (whether it is the true system, or a falsified manifest of such) gives what we asked, and it was asked to be banned...and so be it.

I didn't say it was right. I just said that's the way it was.

[BlindMessiah]

Well, I never said anything about the Constitution. And I never agreed that the decision made was in line with it.

I said the system (whether it is the true system, or a falsified manifest of such) gives what we asked, and it was asked to be banned...and so be it.

I didn't say it was right. I just said that's the way it was.

And I would argue that this system is in conflict with the constitution, and should thus be legally ignored.

[danielost]

Actually we don't. I suggest you take a hard look at our system of government and constitution. We are not a democracy, in that we don't live by majority rule. Our founding fathers were very afraid that we may someday become a strict democracy, and remove the rights of minorities. From the words of the man who wrote the declaration and had an active part in the formation of the constitution, though not there for the actual convention, Thomas Jefferson, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Don't worry these laws will be tied up in courts for years.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

What utter bull, Eric. I'm rather shocked at hearing you support something quite so cack-headed as denying people basic use of the courts system.

Having gone through a messy break-up with someone that I lived with for years, it would have been incredibly useful to have recourse to court divorce proceedings. But I didn't and suffered substantially for it.

And I'll thank you to to give up your pretension to condescending "protections": I'm more than fully able to take care of myself. So is the rest of the gay community.

--Jaylemurph

Actually, I was playing a bit of the devil's advocate. One of my closest friends, who is now dead, was gay. So I am well aware of gay rights. Truthfully, it doesn't bother me a bit if gays get married. I actually think we should all suffer equally. I was a bit peeved by BM's righteousness that came thru in his posts, at 17 he thinks he knows everything and he doesn't. So I apoligize to you Jay, not BM, if what I said offened you. I am for equal rights for everyone no matter what the difference is. I think righteous indignity, on the other hand, should be banned. Boo ya.

[danielost]

I am not sure if a common law marriage is dependent on sex of partners.

[BlindMessiah]

Don't worry these laws will be tied up in courts for years.

The courts can't overturn these. They're constitutional amendments, not laws.

[LogicalPiccolo]

Why it was a need referendum to this if they were already approved in the past??

That means they are becaming narrow-minded.

If the constitution prohibits discrimination then this referendum was inconstitutional.

But what we could wait from a Naz....Austriac guy ?? I'm sure he doesnt like Blacky-Obama why....hummm lol

If this matter its about gay people then why should straight people have a word to say or to decide about it??

It should be only for gay people,so this referendum didnt justify the decision.

Not sure what you meant by this...but if you mean what I think you do, the governor you are referencing voted AGAINST banning it. He was not in favor of proposition 8.

[BlindMessiah]

Actually, I was playing a bit of the devil's advocate. One of my closest friends, who is now dead, was gay. So I am well aware of gay rights. Truthfully, it doesn't bother me a bit if gays get married. I actually think we should all suffer equally. I was a bit peeved by BM's righteousness that came thru in his posts, at 17 he thinks he knows everything and he doesn't. So I apoligize to you Jay, not BM, if what I said offened you. I am for equal rights for everyone no matter what the difference is. I think righteous indignity, on the other hand, should be banned. Boo ya.

I was unaware that a member's post should be disregarded due to age. Apparently you don't believe in equal rights, especially when you wish to outlaw an emotion.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

I was unaware that a member's post should be disregarded due to age. Apparently you don't believe in equal rights, especially when you wish to outlaw an emotion.

No I think when someone thinks they know everything and everyone else is wrong they should be called on it. On many things I am wrong. I can admit it. Good luck.

[+Sherapy]

To find out what the majority think about it, now live with it.

it guaged the amount of intolerance and hate that is what prop 8 did, it said that some voices are more valid then others therefore deciding their civil liberties.... ...

A democracy would find a way to make any situation a win win for all involved..

Edited November 5, 2008 by Tangerine Sheri

[LogicalPiccolo]

And I would argue that this system is in conflict with the constitution, and should thus be legally ignored.

I don't understand BM I'm not arguing with you, I'm stating facts. I'm not saying the system is following the constitution. I'm not saying what happened with prop 8 is legal. As a matter of fact, I don't disagree with anything you've said. I feel like your being touchy with me? Maybe it's just me.

I fully agree this should not have happened this way, but it did. And while we do NOT have politicians (or at least not plenty of them) right now that DO faithfully follow the constitution, we are stuck in the stagnation to which we have inclined ourselves until more people stand up to take some action, vote for the right candidates, and do something about it. It will not fix until that happens.

Do I believe this will happen any time soon? Honestly, no I don't. So if I sound a bit cynical that may be why. Instead, I will be preparing myself to get more hardcore into the next coming election year. I can only hope that we will be able to make a difference when that time comes.

[BlindMessiah]

No I think when someone thinks they know everything and everyone else is wrong they should be called on it. On many things I am wrong. I can admit it. Good luck.

I would love for you to find a single time I have claimed to know everything. Until then I will request you retract your false and slanderous statement.

[BlindMessiah]

I don't understand BM I'm not arguing with you, I'm stating facts. I'm not saying the system is following the constitution. I'm not saying what happened with prop 8 is legal. As a matter of fact, I don't disagree with anything you've said. I feel like your being touchy with me? Maybe it's just me.

Not at all. I like you, sorry if I'm coming across the wrong way.

[LogicalPiccolo]

Not at all. I like you, sorry if I'm coming across the wrong way.

LOL. No no it is alright. The only back draw of forums is without tone of voice to immediately announce intent and nature, it's often hard to interpret meaning. No worries, I think you're great too

[LogicalPiccolo]

What utter bull, Eric. I'm rather shocked at hearing you support something quite so cack-headed as denying people basic use of the courts system.

Having gone through a messy break-up with someone that I lived with for years, it would have been incredibly useful to have recourse to court divorce proceedings. But I didn't and suffered substantially for it.

And I'll thank you to to give up your pretension to condescending "protections": I'm more than fully able to take care of myself. So is the rest of the gay community.

--Jaylemurph

edit: Frankly, I don't see much point in keeping this thread open. I don't feel like bigots ought to have an opportunity to air their views with equanimity, and both sides are inevitably only going to work themselves up into a lather. I don't think anyone's going to walk away from this thread with a different attitude then when they came in.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that. However, even if no one walks away with a different POV, the point is this site gives us the freedom to discuss our opinions on the matter. If a bigot did come in to explain their views, they would be taken like better cough syrup, but they would be taken. Because this site, much like the purpose of this discussion, gives us the freedom to have that opinion. Obviously if it got out of hand, a moderator would come in and take care of it. So there's really no reason to not want it here. As long as everyone is open and adult about the matter, an exchange of different ideas is never bad, even in the face of close-mindedness...as it is a person's right to be close-minded. Irritating, but it is their right.

Edited November 5, 2008 by LogicalPiccolo