Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 759 (572223)
08-04-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
01-13-2010 10:08 AM


Re: Dennis Hollingsworth
Hey DrA, could you link to something? I can't seem to find anything on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2010 10:08 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 17 of 759 (572226)
08-04-2010 7:27 PM


Opinion
Here is the Judge's opinion.
The intervenors, (those defending the Amendment) have asked the Judge to stay the ruling pending appeal. The Judge should rule on that request shortly. I think it likely that he will stay it.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 18 of 759 (572227)
08-04-2010 7:40 PM


Some people have been convinced that the gay right issue is not at all comparable to the civil right issue back in the 60's. This is particularly coming strong from the black community where many members just simply don't want to recognize gay rights as real rights.
Someone just brought my attention to the fake prom shame in Mississippi earlier this year.
Page Not Found: 404 Not Found -
quote:
(CBS) A lesbian student in Mississippi who sued her school for the right to bring her girlfriend to the prom said she was sent to a fake prom instead.
Constance McMillen, 18, told The Advocate that last month's invitation to an alternate prom was a sham, saying that most students attended another dance organized by parents at a secret location.
"They had two proms and I was only invited to one of them," McMillen told the magazine. "The one that I went to had seven people there, and everyone went to the other one I wasn’t invited to."
"It hurts my feelings," she said.
Itawamba Agricultural High School cancelled its prom over the controversy sparked by McMillen's attempt to overturn the school's policy banning same-sex prom dates.
Las month, a federal judge ruled that the school district violated McMillen's constitutional rights, though did not reinstate the prom.
According to McMillen, the prom she attended was at a country club. She said of the five other students at the country club, two had learning disabilities.
"They had the time of their lives," McMillen said. "That's the one good thing that come out of this, [these kids] didn't have to worry about people making fun of them [at their prom]."
When saw this story for the first time today (shame on me) I vaguely remembered a similar story that took place in the 60's. After a little digging, finally found it.
The Tuscaloosa News - Google News Archive Search
Carolyn King-Miller was a victim of the same fake prom stunt pulled by the same mother fucking bigots. The entire town literally took part in the mother fucking prank in both cases.
Shame on those school officials and parents who did the organizing.
Added by edit.
I'm not sure I have the same grace as Carolyn King. If I were her and was invited to a reunion, I would have told them to fuck off and rot in hell. Not very politically correct, but I don't believe in the forgive and forget bullshit anyway.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 08-04-2010 8:44 PM Taz has replied
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 2:05 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 50 by Species8472, posted 08-05-2010 1:50 PM Taz has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 19 of 759 (572237)
08-04-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
08-04-2010 7:40 PM


There was a haunting scene in Das schreckliche Mdchen (The Nasty Girl, 1991). It was presented as based on a true story in which stories she was told all her life inspire a Bavarian high school student to write an essay on how bravely the people of her town had resisted the Nazis. But when she discovers that they had instead collaborated completely, the town turned against her, including violence. Until she starts receiving honors from leading universities for her research, whereupon suddenly they start treating her nicely as if nothing had ever happened.
At that point, she, as the film's narrator, concludes, "Das war ja ein ganz schnes Happy-Ending" ("That was a beautiful happy ending."). But that look in her eyes.
At that time, I had myself just recently been a victim of the Boy Scouts' mindless campaign of religious discrimination. I knew that look in her eyes. As must Carolyn King and Constance McMillen.
We will never forget.
Wo wart ihr dann? Wo seid ihr jetzt?"
(Where were you then? Where are you now?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 08-04-2010 7:40 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 08-04-2010 8:53 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 20 of 759 (572241)
08-04-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by dwise1
08-04-2010 8:44 PM


Wait, hang on, you're a fa... gay? Learn something new everyday
Edit.
Thanks for the film. I'll look for it.
Edit again.
I'm just sitting here in awe about the fake prom thing. Back in the 60's I could understand the whole town taking part in the cruelty. The whole damn south was a cesspool back then. I just can't believe not a single school official, student, or parent had a conflicted conscience about this. I mean, this is 2010 for fuck's sake. Jesus H Christ!
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 08-04-2010 8:44 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 08-05-2010 1:31 AM Taz has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 21 of 759 (572261)
08-05-2010 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Taz
08-04-2010 8:53 PM


No, I'm straight. I'm also an atheist. It was BSA's irrational religious discrimination I was referring to, not their irrational homophobia. And in excluding me BSA had to repeatedly violate its own officially published rules and policies.
Haven't watched that film myself for over a decade. Should pull the tape out.
I'm just sitting here in awe about the fake prom thing. Back in the 60's I could understand the whole town taking part in the cruelty. The whole damn south was a cesspool back then. I just can't believe not a single school official, student, or parent had a conflicted conscience about this. I mean, this is 2010 for fuck's sake. Jesus H Christ!
The cesspool is still there and has spread out. They just cover it up better and use deoderizers.
Gays and atheists are still open targets for virulent discrimination. It may soon just be atheists, which is progress of a sort.


Catchy line from United States of Tara delivered by a straight girl hanging out with the gay students:
I'm straight, but not narrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 08-04-2010 8:53 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 22 of 759 (572262)
08-05-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
08-04-2010 7:40 PM


The fake prom incident that took place earlier this year in Mississippi takes me back to an argument I've been having here with some of the so-called pro-gay rights members.
As some of you may have known, there are members here who wishes to abolish completely the state recognition of marriage and would rather issue "civil union" to everybody.
There's an old story about the south back in the 60's. When the courts ordered the schools to allow black school children to be able to swim in the same swimming pools with white children, the schools put cement in their swimming pools rather than allow those black school children to swim in them. The state of Alabama even closed down their public school system in response to desegregation. In other places, they created fake proms to keep their proms all white.
And now in 2010, an entire town decided to create a fake prom to send what they perceived as undesirables to.
Can't you people see that by ending secular marriage you're following the same tactics as past bigots have taken? Rather than allowing gay people the same right to marry, you'd rather scourge the whole system?
Sometimes, I wonder what your real motives are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 08-04-2010 7:40 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 3:02 AM Taz has replied
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 8:54 AM Taz has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 23 of 759 (572265)
08-05-2010 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taz
08-05-2010 2:05 AM


Taz writes:
Can't you people see that by ending secular marriage you're following the same tactics as past bigots have taken?
No.
Rather than allowing gay people the same right to marry, you'd rather scourge the whole system?
That's not the reason I proposed this. I think church should not have the right to close these kind of contracts anyway. But whatever happens, I want humans to have equal rights, no matter their sexual orientation/race/religion/whatever else you care to think of.
I will say congratulations to california, seems another bigoted law got shot down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 2:05 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:07 AM Huntard has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 759 (572303)
08-05-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taz
08-05-2010 2:05 AM


Can't you people see that by ending secular marriage you're following the same tactics as past bigots have taken? Rather than allowing gay people the same right to marry, you'd rather scourge the whole system?
I don't think maybe you understand the argument. The argument has more to do with the respecting the Establishment Clause (separating religion from state) than it does anything else. I don't think that the State should have ever come in to religious marriage at all, but I understand why they did. I agree that there needs to be protections for couples, gay or straight.
I just think there needs to be a distinction between a religious marriage and civil marriage. Don't let the terms "civil union" throw you for a loop. I just use the term civil union to distinguish it between a religious marriage and a civil one.
Sometimes, I wonder what your real motives are.
Because I think you're getting hung up on the term. It doesn't matter what you call it, I'm just trying use a phrase that sets apart religious marriage from civil marriage.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 2:05 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:00 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 25 of 759 (572305)
08-05-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 8:54 AM


You do understand that every marriage is a civil contract don't you?
Before you can get married in the US you must first get a license from the state. If the ceremony is to be held in a Church, the officiant marries the parties under power vested by the State and God.
There is no such thing as a non-civil marriage in the US.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 8:54 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:07 AM jar has replied
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:30 AM jar has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 26 of 759 (572306)
08-05-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Huntard
08-05-2010 3:02 AM


Huntard writes:
I think church should not have the right to close these kind of contracts anyway.
Then there is absolutely no reason for you to propose it, because every marriage is already a secular, state recognized marriage. Your marriage in a church doesn't mean squat if you don't obtain a marriage license from the state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 3:02 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:11 AM Taz has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 27 of 759 (572307)
08-05-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
08-05-2010 9:00 AM


That's how it is here pretty much as well, you can't get married in a church if you don't first get married by law. However, here, they are two seperate "ceremonies", first you marry by law, and then, if you want to, you can get married in a church. You don't have to marry in a church if you don't want to, the marriage is still valid (yes, I know, you don't have to in America either, but from your reply I did gather that a priest is legally capable of marrying a couple for the law, they aren't here, only "civil servants" are.).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:00 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:11 AM Huntard has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 759 (572310)
08-05-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Huntard
08-05-2010 9:07 AM


Yes, in the US recognized Clergy can perform the actual ceremony and can bless a marriage but all marriages in the US are still licensed civil contracts.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:07 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 29 of 759 (572311)
08-05-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taz
08-05-2010 9:07 AM


Taz writes:
Then there is absolutely no reason for you to propose it, because every marriage is already a secular, state recognized marriage. Your marriage in a church doesn't mean squat if you don't obtain a marriage license from the state.
Yes, I gathered that from Jar's post. Anyway, I think we had these discussions before, and you know I'm not against gays getting "married", I just don't care what they call a contract that is like marriage is now. There is of course no reason to change the name, but there you have it.
By the way, this saturday is "Gay pride parade" in Amsterdam, 80 boats going through the canals queering it up!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:07 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:22 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 35 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:41 AM Huntard has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 759 (572314)
08-05-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 8:54 AM


Hyro writes:
I just think there needs to be a distinction between a religious marriage and civil marriage.
There is already a distinction between religious and civil marriage. Every marriage in the US right now is a civil marriage. Your marriage in the church doesn't mean a thing to the state. You have to obtain a marriage license from the state for the state to recognize that you're married.
Because I think you're getting hung up on the term. It doesn't matter what you call it, I'm just trying use a phrase that sets apart religious marriage from civil marriage.
Yes, it does matter what we call it just like it mattered what school those kids went to back in the 60's.
Like I said, every marriage is a civil marriage already. There's absolutely no reason why you should want scourge the current system of civil marriage just so gay people couldn't "get married".
From a strictly practical point of view, either allow gay people to get married or change a thousand laws or so dealing with marriage. Who's more practical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 8:54 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:41 AM Taz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024