[OT] Sad and Disgusted

"Shiral" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sorry about the election results, Catnipped. That bites and badly.

In California, we had somewhat better luck--NOTHING passed. I know,
sounds weird, right? =o) But this was Ah-nold's special election which
he insisted on holding, even though there wasn't a single proposition
on it that couldn't have waited until the primary election next June.
And he wasted 54 million holding this election to tell us we need to
cut state spending. I guess that makes sense on his planet. The
people of California stood up and collectively handed Ah-nold his head.
Poor man, he might even have to learn to work with the Legislature,
now. EG

Melissa

It was speculated that he chose to hold a special election so that his
supporters would come out and vote, but Democrats wouldn't bother. If so,
that strategy backfired badly. Although the overall turnout was about 40%
of the registered voters, Orange County, which is overwhelmingly Republican,
had an 18% turnout.

Joy

"Victor Martinez" wrote in message
...
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.


Still it is just a proposition. I know that process in California only
tells out legislature what the majority of us that actually votes that day
think we would like to see happen. We can't actually amend the constitution
with a simple majority proposition vote

A very good thing given some of the stuff Californians get all het up and
approve.

Jo

"jhill" wrote:

I imagine it will follow most of the other states that tried to enact a
like-worded amendment and be struck down as unconstitutional by a federal
judge.

?? Where has that happened? To an anti-gay-marriage amendment?


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.

This is a position I've heard before, but I can't seem to get my
head around it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
why would anyone need to call it by any name other than "duck"?

Anyway, this position only leads to the problem of "separate but
equal", which we know doesn't work. As long as the two are
viewed as separate, they won't be equal; once they are truly
accepted as equal, there's no need to view them as separate.

--

Wayne M
(indulged by Will and Heidi)

Victor Martinez wrote:

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.

This is exactly right, Victor -- although it wasn't really we in
the US that mixed the two. It's an inheritance from British law
(where there is no separation of church and state) which has
never been cleaned up since we decided to prohibit state
establishment of, or interference with, religion.

By rights, religious marriage should convey as much legal status
as baptism or bar mitzvah -- i.e., none at all. Allowing the
churches to convey legal status forces the state onto forbidden
ground. Some official has to decide which religions' marriages
are to be officially recognized and which are not, and that
contravenes the establishment clause. Then, either the churches
have to be allowed to discriminate, denying some citizens their
civil rights, or they have to be prevented from discriminating,
which would comprise state interference with the free practice
of religion.

--

Wayne M
(indulged by Will and Heidi)

"Wayne Mitchell" wrote in message
...
"jhill" wrote:

I imagine it will follow most of the other states that tried to enact a
like-worded amendment and be struck down as unconstitutional by a federal
judge.

?? Where has that happened? To an anti-gay-marriage amendment?


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.

This is a position I've heard before, but I can't seem to get my
head around it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
why would anyone need to call it by any name other than "duck"?

Anyway, this position only leads to the problem of "separate but
equal", which we know doesn't work. As long as the two are
viewed as separate, they won't be equal; once they are truly
accepted as equal, there's no need to view them as separate.

--

Wayne M
(indulged by Will and Heidi)

That's the way I see it too.

Joy

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"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



Good point, CN. Good point.

kili

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"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.

Aplogies for the second reply to this topic, but there is more rant left.

RANT WARNING

Please define, for the sake of the above legislation what "marriage" is. is
it two popele in a loving monogamous long term relationship living in the
same dwelling, sleeping in the same bed, and having romatic intercourse?

Is it two people who hate each others guts and wish each other dead living
half a world apart but still legally bound because the law in their parts
doesn't recognise divorce?

Is it a loving relationship with a number of people? Multiple marriages are
allowed in some countries

Is it perhaps nothing more than a legal recognition of a political alliance?
(as many marriage of the past were)

Does a marriage have to involve sex? Does a marriage have to involve
romantic love? Do they have to occupy the same dwelling, or sleep in the
same bed?

There are many many situations where two people, flatmates perhaps, live in
a very similar way to married couples, and yet are not married, nor defacto,
or even consider themsleves a couple. And there are plenty of married people
who treat each other worse than they treat strangers.

And why can a person set up powers of attorney, living wills, inheratances
and effectly set up all the legal things a spouse automatically gets with
any other person *except* their life long partner who, out of all the people
on earth, is most likely to act in their best interest?

And, who the *(^)*(&_&$ does Texas think it is to refuse to recognise a
legal contract made in another state of its own country, much less another
country.

Bah!

The law is an ass.

EOR

Yowie

I don't get why these Christians are so bent out of shape by
homosexuality, especially since their cult was founded by 13 guys who
spent a lot of time kissing each other.

"Fat Freddy" wrote in message
...
I don't get why these Christians are so bent out of shape by
homosexuality, especially since their cult was founded by 13 guys who
spent a lot of time kissing each other.


In all fairness, not all Christians are bent out of shape. And there are
plenty of non-Christians who oppose homosexuality violently.

Generalizations like yours set things back centuries.

Jo

Annie Wxill wrote:
"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

Not to mention the Republican party being hijacked. I have a few
atheist Repub friends who are ****ed as hell.

-L.