Demonstration against Proposition 8 at the Capitol Saturday at 1 pm

Anonymous
I hear it is part of a nationwide effort to hold demonstrations at the same time at city halls all over the country. Don't know any other details than that. Anyone else know anything more?
Anonymous
Whoops -- actually I think it's at 1:30 PM. Sorry!
Anonymous
Whatever happened to...."the people have spoken?"
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to...."the people have spoken?"


Have you ever heard of the Equal Protection Clause? If not, find a copy of the constitution and refer to the 14th amendment.

The Equal Protection Clause protects minority rights. Without it, our democracy would be nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. A simple majority of Californians voted in favor of retracting rights granted by the State's constitution. Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, you should find this troubling. Otherwise, you may some day find yourself a sheep while the wolves are voting. When it comes to the revocation of minority rights, equal protection demands a higher bar than a simple majority.


Anonymous
Yeah, the people spoke when they outlawed interracial marriage. I suppose if you had been living in Virginia in 1960s, you'd have said it was just fine with you that the Mildred and Richard Loving were arrested for getting married -- because, after all "the people have spoken." Took a court to give people the right to marry across the color line in Virginia because "the people" were too racist to do the right thing.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to...."the people have spoken?"


Ah, yes, the essence of democracy and progress: quietly accepting the status quo.

It's how us gals got the right to vote!!
Anonymous
The difference is, gay people CAN get married. They can't marry the person they may choose to marry, of course, just like I can't marry my dog, my grandmother, a 12 year old, or my 15 best friends (at least all at one time).... No one is denying anyone the right to participate in the institution of marriage.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:The difference is, gay people CAN get married. They can't marry the person they may choose to marry, of course, just like I can't marry my dog, my grandmother, a 12 year old, or my 15 best friends (at least all at one time).... No one is denying anyone the right to participate in the institution of marriage.


So, what you are saying is that you really want to marry your dog, but you have accepted that the law does not allow it?

Also, have you discussed this with your dog and had it consented? Because, the consent of both parties is obviously a requirement for marriage.


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The difference is, gay people CAN get married. They can't marry the person they may choose to marry, of course, just like I can't marry my dog, my grandmother, a 12 year old, or my 15 best friends (at least all at one time).... No one is denying anyone the right to participate in the institution of marriage.

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. Two women getting married to each other is the same as a woman marrying her dog or marrying 15 men at one time. So logical (she said sarcastically).

I'm sure back when marriage was only an economic institution (Note to PP: It's only fairly recently that people married for love.) that your argument was exactly what people thought about marrying for love. Let people marry for love and it could lead to anything! Because we Americans have so little impulse control that we'll just do anything if we're not careful -- marry our dogs even!

No, two women who love each other and want to get married have a lot more in common with a man and a woman who love each other and want to get married than they do with a woman who wants to marry her dog!

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The difference is, gay people CAN get married. They can't marry the person they may choose to marry, of course, just like I can't marry my dog, my grandmother, a 12 year old, or my 15 best friends (at least all at one time).... No one is denying anyone the right to participate in the institution of marriage.

Right, and in Virginia in 1960, both black and white people COULD get married. No one was denied the right to participate in the institution of marriage but they could only marry people of their own race. Perfectly equal as long as you make sure you only fall in love with someone from your own race. And that was the will of the majority of Virginians at the time -- so, according to your logic, if we had been around back then we shouldn't have protested.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The difference is, gay people CAN get married. They can't marry the person they may choose to marry, of course, just like I can't marry my dog, my grandmother, a 12 year old, or my 15 best friends (at least all at one time).... No one is denying anyone the right to participate in the institution of marriage.



ARE YOU SERIOUS??!! Are you seriously comparing two CONSENTING adults who love each other w/pedophilia, beastiality (SP) & incest?? This is the exact ignorance that allowed Prop 8 to pass in the first place. You say gay people can marry, but not who they want?? What the f*ck!
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The difference is, gay people CAN get married. They can't marry the person they may choose to marry, of course, just like I can't marry my dog, my grandmother, a 12 year old, or my 15 best friends (at least all at one time).... No one is denying anyone the right to participate in the institution of marriage.


So, what you are saying is that you really want to marry your dog, but you have accepted that the law does not allow it?

Also, have you discussed this with your dog and had it consented? Because, the consent of both parties is obviously a requirement for marriage.




LOL. You are killing me!
Anonymous
For some people, the idea of the sacred rite of matrimony being profaned by two men or two women is sickening. For others (including me), the thought of someone not being able to marry the man he loves or the woman she loves is untenable. It may be impossible to satisfy both.

Politicians like Obama, artists of the possible, say they agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that nobody should have his or her rights limited, so they support civil union with all the rights and privileges of marriage. They may not make anyone happy, but they try to come as close as possible to win-win.

Maybe if they succeed, those revolted by the idea of same sex marriage will see enough same sex couples that they will cease being revolted and everyone can truly be equal and happy.

May it be!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:For some people, the idea of the sacred rite of matrimony being profaned by two men or two women is sickening. For others (including me), the thought of someone not being able to marry the man he loves or the woman she loves is untenable. It may be impossible to satisfy both.

Politicians like Obama, artists of the possible, say they agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that nobody should have his or her rights limited, so they support civil union with all the rights and privileges of marriage. They may not make anyone happy, but they try to come as close as possible to win-win.

Maybe if they succeed, those revolted by the idea of same sex marriage will see enough same sex couples that they will cease being revolted and everyone can truly be equal and happy.

May it be!


I think they should change the name of marriage in the civil sphere... like, instead of everyone (including man + woman) having to get a "marriage license" to get "married", we all should have to get a "civil union license" (or something like that). If the word marriage has this strong religious connotation like some claim, it should be reserved to the ceremony at religious institutions only. True separation of State and Religion.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: