announced that the sex lives of their fellow citizens are the public's business and should be judged. They have taken away the rights of gay people to marry. This attitude affects us as hobbyists more than many others. This sort of judgmental ism is the justification for criminalizing providing.
Frankly, what YOU do in YOUR bedroom is none of my business, and certainly shouldn't be governed by people who think they have the right to tell you who you can or can't fall in love with.
More and more choices are being made for us. I feel that each person should have a right to choose who they sleep with or not in private.
When did public opinion have the right to govern your personal choices. It is in the publics best interests to allow a gay couple the right to care for each other.To make a legal and binding contract to share responsibilities as most couples who are married do and to make an honest and open commitment to each other. What the heck is marriage anyway!
More and more freedom is taken away all in the name of security. Many people are running scared but have no idea who they are running from.One of these days their going to turn around to see and it will be to late.
Kisses Haley
Everyone is probably familiar with the saying attributed to Benjamin Franklin, to the extent that he who would sacrifice his liberty for security deserves (or, will have) neither.
We have two forces working against individual liberty in the US today:
1) The government and its willingness to use 9-11 as an excuse to gather more information, monitor more communication, regulate more conduct, and in specific instances deny civil rights. I work in the counter terror business and I believe that the provisions of the Patriot act have more to do with the desire to grab more power and control than with preventing terrorism.
2) Moralists, who place more value on their particular views of human conduct than they do on individual liberty.
We are fast losing sight of the gift that pluralism is - of its need to be preserved against the claims of absolutists and bureaucrats alike. Individual liberty means that you may make a full ranges of choices in your personal life without interference, if they do not publicly or directly limit the liberty of others.
Neither of your political parties believes in this foundational principle. We need a strong, powerful, well supported Libertarian party, focused in every case primarily on the defense of individual liberty.
Cheers -
Gregory
Dr. Joe (you old coot) you have alzheimers. Prescribe yourself some Aricept. You've lost touch with reality.
California, finally woke the fuck up, and voted like the rest of sensible America. 
-- Modified on 11/6/2008 8:41:25 AM
and sensible America chooses to put providers behind bars and to ruin the lives of gentlemen caught up in stings...Tell that to your wife when she sees your name in print and that the community has chosen you as the minority.
By the way...Dr. Joe is a big asset to this board and is a deciding factor for most of us. His point of view is very important to most members on this board, me included.
You had your chance to speak your peace but under an alias...Step up to the plate and be a man..Got something to say go ahead but many would not like your comment especially about Dr. Joe.
Haley
But we don't want to see your blood-stained panties. Now, go home and change your undies and return to the playground. Recess is not over, if you hurry. However, you and the other bullies will wear dunce caps and write on the board 100 times, "I will not be a racist and will not judge other people." Now, repeat after me . . .
Hugs,
Ciara
Often homophobics have underlying homosexual tendencies that are manifested in angry outbursts such as this, against the very core of what they are and their inability to deal with it.
Good luck with that.
The more gays, the more pussy for the rest of us.
While I am old, I test myself regularly and do not seem to have Alzheimer's.
-- Modified on 11/6/2008 6:31:52 PM
Its pretty upsetting that that some people want to CHANGE our California Constitution to remove rights of a minority. Its also upsetting that the vast majority of money to support this discriminatory proposition came from outside of California. In a sentence the Mormons and the Catholics.
I suppose "all people created equal" doesn't have the same meaning for some as it does for others.
there are 3 lawsuits filed that I've heard of already, i'm sure there will be more. The was a huge protest down Sunset last night and i hope there will be more ...
Discrimination is NOT okay nor should it be pandered to.
There was no "Right" in the California Constitution for gay marriage. Two extremely liberal judges out of 3 thought they knew better than the people of California and tried to impose their two-person view on something that is not in their power to do. So the People did what is rightfully THEIR responsibility under the Constitution, and set the judges straight.
And please, people, can we just drop the lame 'Whatever two people do in the privacy of their bedroom" line in trying to support gay marriage. It is non-sensical. If two people DID keep what they do in the bedroom, IN THE BEDROOM, this issue wouldn't even arise, since nobody would know WHAT THEY ARE DOING. The backlash in the country is because people decided to NOT keep what they do in the bedroom IN THE BEDROOM, and instead bring it literally into the streets (public arena).
And how come I never hear supporters of gay marriage addressing the issue of three people marrying, or four, or five? Why aren't the GLAAD folks marching for the rights of old-style Mormons?
And what about two people who love each other "Philios" instead of "Eros"? Is the support only to go to people who like to touch another's genitals?
The government shouldn't base laws on an ephemeral definition of 'love' when it comes to marriage. Marriage is regulated by the state because it generally serves a purpose to the state. It is not there to bestow 'goodies' for the sake of 'goodies'.
In my state, a few of my homosexual friends have given each other medical power of attorney, and set each up to inherit the others wealth should one pass away. No law stopped that. No law stops them from living together. No law stops them from doing what they want in their bedroom.
This issue is not one of tolerance, which we have now, but of a certain group of people wanting to have a general societal acceptance of what they do. That won't happen.
To me if the constitution does not ban gay marriage, therefore it should be legal.
As I have asked many times, and have never gotten a valid response...
"How would two men or women getting married affect you at all?"
If anybody who is against gay marriage can give me a valid answer... Other than "I am against it!" then I will listen.
There are those who are against escorts. Since they probably are the majority, what if a vote were to come up that made it the death penalty for using an escort. Would that be fine with you yahoos?
Furthermore, drop the shit of "What about three people marrying?" or "What if a man wants to marry a child?" or "What if a man wants to marry a dog?" If you jump from two adults marrying to children or marrying animals, it is you who are the sick one.
This is about two people who want all the rights of marriage. I have no issue with religious nutjobs prohibiting marriage in their church. That is their right. But to base civil laws on a boring piece of literature called the bible is garbage...
Not very believable, but boring? Rape, murder, incest, not to mention all the plagues and pestilence. I would hardly say the bible is boring.
Now to live your entire life according to some novel written centuries ago, and to force others to do the same is insane, but certainly not boring.
I really do like all the begetting. That, and the slaying of people with the jaw bone of an ass. That reminds me... stock up on ass jawbones.
Should be plenty of those on the P&R board, or ate those ass keyboards.
You cannot say if the Constitution doesn't ban gay marriage it should be allowed.
The constitution doesn't band drug use, incest, bestiality, or smoking yet things things are banned. Why, because the PEOPLE chose to enact LAWS doing so. The PEOPLE did NOT vote to have the defintion of marriage changed, as two justices tried to do on their own.
As for three people marrying, I am sorry that you are not well aware of the serious movements to get this approved as well. THEY ARE USING THE SAME REASONING AS THE PEOPLE SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE. Take a few moments and Google polyamorous relationships and you'll find enough evidence. So stop running from the question.
On WHAT BASIS do you draw the line at two people instead of three? If we are a country of laws, our laws need to be founded on something.
drug use, incest, bestiality, or smoking
I don't believe any of your examples should be banned either, with the exception of smoking "in public places" which is strictly because that activity infringes on the rights of others. The other activities are none of anyone else's business as long as they are the acts of an adult, and of their own free will.
Only for you.
-- Modified on 11/6/2008 12:45:42 PM
What if 3 people want to 'pursue happiness'?
4?
5?
A brother and sister?
Two sisters?
There are already groups putting forth the preceding.
So what is the line you draw and will discriminate from? Everyone eventually has one.
The problem with 'feel-good-ism' is nobody counts the cost or measures how far things actually wind up going.
interpreted and sometimes amended by new generations of Americans to meet the needs and sensibilities of an evolving society.
just as civil rights for minorities were not strictly written into the constitution, but interpreted as an extension of it by the courts,
so individual liberties and the guarantee of full civil rights for people of various sexual expressions must and will become an extension by interpretation on the part of the courts.
"strict constructionism" is long dead - else only white male land owners would be able to vote.
What the constitution may have met to the founders, or to those of the civil war era, or to those of the 50s and 60s does not impinge upon today's American society.
to put in a provision for the PEOPLE to amend it, not for judges to stick their finger in the air or apply their own viewpoint. Radical change shouldn't be forced upon it from a handful of basically unaccountable people.
I am sure you are familiar with the process by which the constitution is amended. If you disagree with the courts interpreting the constitution, it is likely because they do not support your conclusions..... At the end of the day, the framer's intents in some cases had to be repudiated (ie limiting government to the white and the rich), and in other cases applied on the basis of principles which the framer's themselves could not possibly have held or envisioned. If this were not so, our society would have died out a long time ago.
and all too often, the gay folks that I know are unfairly delt with in the legal and judicial system. While I do not strictly think that "Gays" should be allowed to "MARRY" I do think that they should have the right to a legally binding union - WITH ALL THE RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND PRIVALEGES (and penalties, ie same 'divorce' governances). Call it what you will, but marriage should be reserved to a male female union. There is a reason for this... call me old fashioned, but part of the reason is that is the tradtional meaning of the word.... keep that but create something new for Gays.... that should not be a problem.
I personally don't care if a partnership is made up of a Man&Women,Man&MAN,Women&Women...but when it comes to chidren...I do believe children benefit from the qualities that a good father can instill in his child and the same holds true
for the mother....But with the divorce rate at 50/50....geez!!!!....Do our chidren even stand a chance these days!...Maybe if we took humans completely out of the picture and turned our children over to animals to raise...they'd be better off!!!..my hats off to those of you out there who raise children with love and respect,no matter what type of relationship you are in!
You want prostitution to be legal?! OMG, where will you draw the line? What next, people can pay to have sex with animals or with public, plug-in fleshlights!?
The Constitution is clear that you do not have the right to prostitution. Why, it will destroy the institution of "one man, one woman" consensual, marital, for-procreation-only sex!
The next thing you know, you'll want masturbation to legal, by God! Everyone knows that "if though wasteth the seed, thy crops will whither and the Lord God shall smite thee!" We cannot stand by while heathens like you roam the earth!
The entire fabric of our country will be destroyed if liberals like you had their way!
Take off your Constitutional false-garment, and expose yourself as the pervert you are!
Self-Righteously Not Yours,
Troy
It does not matter the sex of the parents, it is more important that the parents love the child, and provide the child with all the opportunities.
There has been no validated study that shows having a male and female parent gives the child a better experience than two males or two females.
To say anything different is garbage, and is drinking the kool-aid of the religious right.
as I know lesbian couples who do raise kids... frankly, they bend over backwards to ensure the kids are loved - and secure... further, they wish their kids to be straight.... as they commented to me... just too difficult to be gay... just too difficult in life in general but why wish for hardship... an interesting comment...
I've found that the most profound statements made to me, often come in response to questions that I've asked - expecting another unrelated answer
at the statistics for a gay relationship? 20-25% of ALL GAY relationships never see the 5th year. so the idea of a gay relationship to provide for children is not true. this comes from a gay friend of mine in Portland who is an activist in his area.
20-25% of gay "relationships" don't last 5 years.
Just what the fuck are we supposed to derive from these totally unrelated numbers?
Why do people care soooo much about other people's sex lives???
I'm only interested in my own sex life, and extremely happy that I have one. Anybody else's sex life is none of my business, and frankly, I don't give a fat frog's ass who you, or anyone else sleeps with.
People are confusing the rights of privacy in one's bedroom versus a legal status. Now you may want gay people to have the same legal status of marriage afforded a man and woman. But to say this is all about the bedroom is nothing more than spurious and degrades what the argument is all about -- a legal status. I think people who take the "bedroom angle" actually do the gay marriage movement more harm than good by moving the goal posts in the wrong direction -- this is all about legalities -- not what one does in the bedroom.
I live in California and voted for this proposition. What you said is exactly the point of the proposition despite all the lies that the opponents wanted everyone to believe. It's funny how people start propagating all the lies that they hear and running around screaming "The sky is falling" before finding out the real issues.
Here is the exact wording from the proposition:
Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution to read:
Sec. 7.5 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
This is one of the simplest propositions I have ever seen and it was already approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters. The proposition did not restrict anybody's rights. It does not prevent gays from having a relationship or partnership or doing whatever they want in the privacy of their home. It does not prevent them from raising a family.
Gays are already allowed to have a civil union with their partner which is recognized by the State and offers them the same rights and benefits as a marriage and this proposition did not take those away. They just can't call it a marriage. The whole point of the proposition was to reserve the word "marriage" to specifically apply to a union between a Man and a Woman. So this proposition also keeps other partnerships from being called a marriage no matter how much they love each other - a man and an animal, a man and a blow-up doll, a man and a potted plant... Are we treating them unfairly and discriminating against them? Forcing everyone else to call a gay union or these other partnerships a marriage detracts from its meaning and is a restriction on everyone else's rights.
Certain words and phrases should only apply to specific definitions because they carry certain connotations and expectations. You wouldn't allow a person to call just any building a synagogue because this has a specific meaning with specific requirements. When I order a steak, I have certain expectations of what a steak is. I wouldn't expect to be brought a burger patty just because it is also made of beef. It would be absurd if McDonald's argued that they should be allowed to refer to their ground beef patties as steaks and not letting them do so is a violation of their rights. This is also why some companies are so fervent with respect to brand, logo and trademark infringement. There is a certain expectation associated with their products and they don't even want other products with similar sounding names to be mistaken for theirs.
There's a difference between promoting tolerance or acceptance and forcing your own beliefs down someone else's throat. I know several vegetarians/vegans and accept their practice but it doesn't mean I want them to start making demands to force everyone to accomodate them. What if they demanded that all restaurants have a vegetarian section on their menu? And not just salads, they must have vegetarian entrees. Are we discriminating against them for not doing this? Are we violating their rights? It seems hypocritical that while the homosexual community wants everyone to accept them, they are not willing to accept the idea of the term "marriage" applying only to a heterosexual union.
-- Modified on 11/7/2008 12:47:58 AM
First, I can't see how this vote affects hobbyists. We're dealing with very different issues.
Second, some people like to compare this to interracial marriages which were banned years ago under miscegenation laws (on one of the other discussion boards this argument is being made). They typically use Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case in which the US Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriages, to make their case. In Loving the court held that a law which considers race to determine an allowable marriage is inherently suspect. It therefore follows that law which use sex are likewise unconstitutional. The problem is that race and sex are not the same. We have mens rooms and ladies rooms, girls soccer teams and girls track teams. But turn that into white only bathrooms or white only soccer teams then you have glaring constitutional issue, both state and federal. Men and women are different, but the courts have never held that sexual orientation discrimination is the same as race discrimination.
Additionally, when the California Supreme Court overturned the previous ban on same sex marriage under Proposition 22, they explicitly went against precedent that they set 2 years earlier when they found that the domestic partnership act was equal in all ways to marriage except name. In May 2008, however, they said it was a violation of equal protection despite that recent claim it was not. This is the main problem when you have the judiciary making these decisions, they change on a dime and move with the wind. It makes it difficult to understand what the Constitution means at the present time because the court just arbitrarily changes it.
Along those same lines, the democratic process should govern. I understand that twice the California legistlature passed same sex marriage laws and twice they were vetoed. We now have a larger democratic process under Proposition 8, banning same sex marriage. The same thing happened in 2000 under Proposition 22, which the May 2008 case overturned. The same may occur with Prop 8, who knows. But I firmly believe that when it comes to issues such as these that the democratic process is the appropriate route to decide these issues. If not, we end up with uncertainty in our laws because a court with an agenda can change them at their whim.
In summary, people need to be careful about the legal arguments being made. In my opinion, however, I don't care what people do with respect to marriage. I don't oppose it, but I don't think the judiciary should be imposing it on everyone else.
The People never gave that right to gays in the first place. A court stepped way off the reservation to abrogate the right of the People to make those decisions; the People simply reasserted their rights. I can't see how this affects hobbyists at all.
I really couldn't believe that, although, America was ready for a black president, California chose to strip people of basic HUMAN RIGHTS. Yes, prohibiting two consenting adults from getting married (b/c of sexual preference) contradicts the principle of all people being "created equal" and should be ILLEGAL.
And to add to my frustration, I have no choice to drive home but through the Westwood area of Los Angeles, and yesterday it was gridlocked.
In Arkansas, it's now illegal for unmarried couples to adopt children. Yeah, guess what kind of couples that puts at the greatest disadvantage - the ones who are not allowed to marry.
You know what really sickens me about this? Really, really sickens me? The Mormon church funneled, last I heard, over $22 million to the Yes on 8 initiative. TWENTY TWO MILLION DOLLARS. Funneled into legislature that treats a group of people like second-class citizens; funneled into legislature based on discrimination.
HOW CAN THEY CALL THEMSELVES A CHURCH? Wouldn't the VIRTUOUS thing to do be to funnel that $22mil into programs that help the homeless get back on their feet - programs that feed the hungry in third-world nations - programs that give medical care to those who cannot afford it?
But instead, they wasted it. All for the sake of putting "love" in the little box of the way THEY are able to accept it.
I can't write about this anymore. It gets me really upset. I'm just so disgusted.
Ugh.
the kids are mixed race, and the mothers are not in a position to raise the kids. My gay friends are well educated professionals, and certianly will provide a better chance for these kids than the birth mother.
Most important, they love the kids, the kids love them, and if you could spend 5 minutes with the kids, and their "Two Dads", you would see how much.
From what I see, this action by the voters has NOT prevented people from choosing who they want to sleep with, live with, have sex with, spend their lives with, etc., etc. It merely has stated that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
I really don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about this. Another judge will rule again, another prop will be put on a ballot and this issue will keep going back and forth. It will never go away.