|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hey DrA, could you link to something? I can't seem to find anything on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Taz writes:
No.
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?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Huntard 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.
I think church should not have the right to close these kind of contracts anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
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.).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Taz writes:
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. 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. By the way, this saturday is "Gay pride parade" in Amsterdam, 80 boats going through the canals queering it up!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hyro writes:
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.
I just think there needs to be a distinction between a religious marriage and civil marriage. 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024