Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

As soon as you start saying you were "garried" three times, then we'll know you're sincere.

---

​

But I'm not g-g-g-gay.

---

That's the point. Since you wouldn't abide by your own term, you clearly aren't sincere. You aren't actually upset because the term is the same. You're upset because gay people are being treated exactly the same as you are.

quote:

---

Would you go for "fairied"?

---

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

"Gay marriage" is like a handicap parking stall

---

Huh? How is "gay marriage" any different from "straight marriage"? It's the same contract.

quote:

---

By legalizing "gay marriage" I would feel disenfranchised from my constitutional rights because I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman.

---

What makes you think that this belief of yours is a constitutional right?As the cliche goes: If you're against same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.Are you saying that if same-sex marriage is legal, you would be forced to marry someone of the same sex?There are lots of things that are legal in this country that I'm sure you would like to see less of. Why is it you never seem to complain about those? Why is it you understand that the freedom and liberty that allows those things you despise to take place are also there to allow you to freely engage in behaviour that others find distasteful and wish there were less of?How does same-sex marriage affect you personally? Exactly how does your life change when the neighbors get married?Be specific.

quote:

---

That's all I've got, Nosy”just my opinion and feelings on the matter.

---

In other words, ya got nuthin'. Just a personal squick factor as if that were a reason to piss on the Constitution.

quote:

---

Who has anything more than that to bring to the table?

---

All the gay people who can't get married.
All the gay people who were kicked out of their own houses because their wills were overturned by the family since they weren't married.
All the gay people who were denied visitation of their loved ones in the hospital because they weren't married.
All the gay people who were unable to make decisions for their children because they weren't married to the biological parent.
All the gay people who were unable to sponsor their loved ones into the country for citizenship because they weren't married.
All the gay people who pay higher taxes because they cannot take advantage of the benefits of marriage.There are over 1000 federal rights that come with marriage along with, at least in California, over 1000 state rights.None of them are available to gays because they can't get married.Why does your squick factor trump their actual state of living?

quote:

---

It's all about opinions and feelings.

---

Right...because the CSC took 120 pages to not actually justify their decision but rather to recite dozens of recipes for baked goods.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

I think it should then either go down to a vote by the citizens in each state.

---

Right...because denial of constitutional rights should be decided by popular vote. I mean, it isn't like the majority ever discriminates against the minority.Remember: When Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the population thought that interracial marriage should be outlawed.Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong to overtun the will of the people?

quote:

---

Let the people decide what they want. That is, after all, how democracies work. We seem to be forgetting that ever-so-slowly.

---

Ahem.Let the Constitution limit the tyranny of the majority. That is, after all, how constitutions work.You seem to have forgotten that oh-so-quickly when that Constitution goes against you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rrhain, sorry to have to break it to you: In a democracy the majority always discriminates against the minority. Is that why you are so afraid to put it to a vote?”HM

I sense a bigoted move on your part by your use of an upper case "G" for Gays and a lower case "s" for straights. Maybe all the straights should storm their governments and demand equal captalization under the law.”HM

Which is why in this Country we have the Constitution.

This remark makes me wonder if another thread should be opened to discuss: "Why is it bigotry to oppose "gay marriage"?Nosy, would that be a futile exercise?”HM

FO, I'm willing to bet my sailboat against your bicycle that the framers of this country's Constitution had not even the slightest concern over protecting sexual-orientation rights when they framed it. To them "marriage" was always a heterosexual union. And to them gravity always pulled apples down instead of up when they fell out of tree. If you can proved that the framers of the Constitution had "gay marriage" in mind I'll sail my boat all the way around to Michigan and park it in the marina of your choice.”HM

Are you completely in"fucking"capable of reading? Please, in the name of Zeus, show me where I compare the plight of blacks in this Country to the plight of homosexuals. Please. Because, no where...not even in the partial quote you highlighted in yellow...do I make a comparison between the two groups. I swear, Hoot Mon, you have got to be the most illiterate literate I have ever come a cross.Telling you that you are using arguments against homosexual marriage that were once used to keep blacks from marrying whites is NOT a FUCKING comparison of the two groups. Are you completely incapable of seeing that (that's a rhetorical question, Hoot Mon, because obviously you are)?Do you see now? I am not comparing the two groups. I am not saying "homosexuals are facing the same problems in this Country that were once faced by Blacks. I'm not saying that. I am saying the you...you, hoot Mon...YOU!!!are using arguments that were once used by others. You are doing it Hoot Mon...you are...YOU. It's not a comparison. It's a statement of fact they YOU are using the same argument. OK...and your point? OK...and your point? Perhaps. But denying (or supporting the denial...or agreeing with the denial) someone else their Constitutional rights solely because they're a homosexual does make you a bigot. How nice...you get to use your own definition. Meaningless...but cute.

...ah...you're not? What am I missing here?Here's the logical construction: A is not a comparison to B, therefore A is like B.”HM

Geeez, maybe I can help here.The two things he is comparing are NOT groups of people. He is not talking about blacks as a group (or individually). He is not talking about gays as a group or individually.He IS talking about arguments used to justify a position. He is NOT talking about arguments blacks have used and he is NOT talking about arguments that gays have used.He IS talking about arguments put forward against selected marriages. Get it? Arguments NOT groups of people.He IS comparing the argument you have used against selected marriages to arguments used by some whites (like the KKK I am pretty sure) against mixed race marriage.

But it doesn't matter Hoot Mon, whether or not the framers of our Constitution foresaw and even remotely dreamed of marriage eventually becoming a homosexual "issue". They wrote the Constitution the way they did to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And until recently, it has done a pretty good job. Now we have a bunch of homophobic bigots that want to pass laws and amend State Constitutions (as well as our U.S. Constitution) such that a minority will have their rights Constitutionally taken away by a bigoted majority. And I can fucking guarantee you, Hoot Mon, that the framers of our Constitution would absolutely NOT stand by while that sort of thing happened. It's WHY the Constitution was written the way it was.So, while we both know that neither of us can "prove" one way or another whether or not the Framers were specifically concerned with "sexual orientation rights", any third grader can tell you that the Constitution was purposefully written to be vague because they knew that issue might very well arise that they had not even remotely considered. And that the majority could not be allowed to force their views upon the minority. So when can you deliver my new sail boat?

OK, you win by differentiating arguments from groups. But no matter how you look at these arguments there is an implication that “same-sex marriage” and mixed-race marriage should be comparable in the context of a legal contract. I think it is disingenuous for those who make such comparisons to claim they have no intention of likening the plight of blacks with that of gays.What about the plight of heterosexual married people who feel their institution is threatened by the gay-power movement, which claims to be the successor of the black-power movement? Mr. and Mrs. Smith out in Iowa are very confused about such power movements, especially when they are told that any heterosexual-power movement would be a highly bigoted affair.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

Why would their institution be threatened. They would still be married under the law only the law would extend to previously denied couples.
I still cannot see what the difference would be or why heterosexual couples would lose anything if homosexual couples could marry.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

A Constitutional Republic is an example of democracy. There are several forms of democracy, and a CR is just one example. Very true indeed, in my humblest opinion. But then again a woman can't self-determine to marry a tree and remain within the context of what a marriage is. Well, she can make that determination, but it means nothing legally, but it may have some sentimental significance to the woman marrying the tree. The problem is that definitions often have very narrow interpretations for reasons of clarity. As of now, and as of always, marriage been defined as being between a man and a woman.There is even further distinction, as just being a man and a woman by nature does not alone make two people married. It seems that you would first have to overturn DOMA and then redefine definitions.I'm sure stranger things have happened. Societal shifts are clearly taking place, and with time homosexuals will likely be allowed to legally marry. I think I see a bigger irony. If a person who doesn't agree with your view is a bigot on those pretenses, then what does that make you?

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo