[OT] Sad and Disgusted

On 2005-11-09, Jo Firey penned:

"jhill" wrote in message
...
I am for only a union of a man and a woman being called marriage as
it has been traditionally. I have no objections to creating
another equivalent term or word with the same legal power for other
kinds of unions. I didn't know how to vote on it.


Your feelings reflect where I was five or six years ago. I've
gradually come to believe that people are more important than words.
Its a journey.

Jo

Thanks, Jo. That is a very elegant way of expressing it.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

"Jo Firey" wrote in message
...

"pistor" wrote in message
oups.com...
CatNipped wrote:
Well, Proposition 2 was overwhelmingly passed in Texas yesterday. One
of
the few times I've been ashamed to be a Texan!

I was actually surprised at the final total, I was expecting it to be
more in the 60-65% range. Then again, this is Texas, after all. At
least Travis County (where I live) rejected the ammendment by 60%!


Usually propositions like this in California are thrown out by the
California supreme court. Isn't that likely to happen in this case?

Jo

I hope so, but I don't understand constitutional law well enough to say for
sure. DH says that as long as the supreme court holds sacred the right of
anyone to choose his/her sexual orientation that they can not uphold changes
to the states' constitutions. Again, I don't know (but I do know that even
that might change if Bush gets his pick of judges).

Hugs,

CatNipped

"Jo Firey" wrote in message
...

"jhill" wrote in message
...
I am for only a union of a man and a woman being called marriage as it
has
been traditionally. I have no objections to creating another equivalent
term or word with the same legal power for other kinds of unions. I
didn't know how to vote on it.


Your feelings reflect where I was five or six years ago. I've gradually
come to believe that people are more important than words. Its a journey.

Jo

Exactly! What someone else does, what someone else calls their union, whom
someone else loves, has *NO* bearing on how I feel about my own sacred
union. There is *WAY* too little happiness in this world as it is for us to
be trying to deny someone their own happiness. And just looking at it
logically, taking away someone else's rights is *NOT* a good thing for my
own rights (which may be in the unpopular position at some time in the
future!).

Hugs,

CatNipped

Exactly! What someone else does, what someone else calls their union, whom
someone else loves, has *NO* bearing on how I feel about my own sacred
union.

I feel very fortunate to be in a country where those in power seem to
be a lot more accepting of people's rights, freedome, and diversities.

It feels odd, though, that I used to view America as "What every
country should aspire to be" and that I now view it as embodying things
I hope Canada /doesn't/ do.

--Fil

Jo Firey wrote:
Usually propositions like this in California are thrown out by the
California supreme court. Isn't that likely to happen in this case?

This one is a Constitutional Ammendment, which I think makes it immune
to legal challenge within the state. Now, Federal Court can certainly
invalidate a state constitutional ammenment if it finds it violates the
US Constitution.
Just like desegregation, equality for gays and lesbians will come out
through the courts. Masses can't be trusted to empathize with minorities.

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam he
Email me he

CatNipped wrote:
Exactly! What someone else does, what someone else calls their union, whom
someone else loves, has *NO* bearing on how I feel about my own sacred
union. There is *WAY* too little happiness in this world as it is for us to

I think the root of the problem in the US, is that you have mixed the
concepts of civil marriage and religious marriage. By allowing religious
ministers to perform civil marriages, the line between law and religion
has been blurred. Which gives ammo to the religious right to fight gay
marriage by scaring people into thinking that some judge is going to
order their church to start marrying gays.
In Mexico when you want to get married you have to be married by a
judge. If on top of that (and most people do) you want a religious
wedding, you can have that, but only *after* you've been married by a
judge. It's best to keep religion and law separate, if you ask me.

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam he
Email me he

If people would let people live and let live plus live and let be this
world would be a hell of alot better
If they ain't personally hurting you, your family or causing someone or
something to be hurt
People should STFU and leave each other alone who cares who is with who.

Victor I take it that they passed this ridiculous law today How is that
going to effect you and your better half

"Victor Martinez" wrote in message
...
.... It's best to keep religion and law separate, if you ask me.
Victor M. Martinez

As I understand it, that is one of the basic parts of the U.S. Constitution.
In common language, it's called separation of church and state.
More and more, it feels like that great document is being hijacked.
Annie

No More Retail wrote:
Victor I take it that they passed this ridiculous law today How is that
going to effect you and your better half

It is possible that at some point in time, some judge is going to
invalidate all legal documents that give gay couples some of the rights
and privileges afforded to married couples.

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam he
Email me he

"Victor Martinez" wrote in message
...
No More Retail wrote:
Victor I take it that they passed this ridiculous law today How is
that
going to effect you and your better half

It is possible that at some point in time, some judge is going to
invalidate all legal documents that give gay couples some of the rights
and privileges afforded to married couples.

I agree, because of the wording, "Defining marriage as between one man and
one woman, and prohibiting the state, cities and counties from recognizing
any other legal status similar to marriage.

It's *WAY* to vague and open to interpretation of what "any other legal
status *SIMILAR* to marriage". What's similar to marriage? A gay couple
cohabiting, two roommates cohabiting, two friends who just want to be able
to depend on each other for medical power of attorney?

Whenever you give lawyers that much room to maneuver, you can *BET* that
they'll take it to ridculous extremes.

Hugs,

CatNipped

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam he
Email me he