|
|
| Re: Gay protest in LA (380579) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||
|
| (380732) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Nov 6 08:20:58 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by J trainloco on Thu Nov 6 08:19:55 2008. lol |
|
|
| (380802) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:15:19 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Nov 6 02:09:28 2008. Damn the people! We can't have majority rule when the majority disagrees with me! |
|
|
| (380804) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:19:08 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 02:11:32 2008. One big problem with that analysis: a majority of Americans opposes doing so. And there's not a single historical precedent for a society equating a same-sex relationship with a heterosexual one. Which is why I support domestic partnerships which grants most of the legal rights married couples now have without putting society's seal of approval on gay relationships. Unfortunatley, gay activists want to force everyone to accept their viewpoints without compromise. I think they call that fascism. |
|
|
| (380805) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 6 11:19:38 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Nov 6 03:57:54 2008. I know a lesbian girl at the gym in Queens who always had bruises and black eyes from her female husband.How do you know she isn't into S&M? |
|
|
| (380806) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Nov 6 11:20:05 2008, in response to Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 02:07:30 2008. Well, the voters have spoken. They should get over it! |
|
|
| (380809) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:25:54 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Nov 6 04:07:28 2008. I don't think rights are being taken away, I think there's just a desire to define something which is constitutionally murky. If an ammendment to the state constitution is passed defining a marriage, it doesn't grant or restrict rights, it only enumerates them. I don't think the political climate will allow an ammendment to pass. It certainly isn't for granting legal recognition of gay marriage. So this issue won't die, like it should. |
|
|
| (380810) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Nov 6 11:28:01 2008, in response to Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 02:07:30 2008. They should take their protest to south central if they really want to get their point across.I would pay to see that! |
|
|
| (380811) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:28:29 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by R30A on Thu Nov 6 02:56:16 2008. One can oppose gay marriage and not be a homophobe. I oppose it because the majority of the people don't want it and I oppose doing judicially what should be done legislatively. There's only one legitimate way gay marriage should be recognized...that being having a law passed by a proper legislature. |
|
|
| (380812) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:30:06 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 6 11:19:38 2008. Would you ask the same if said woman was married to a man? |
|
|
| (380815) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Nov 6 11:35:45 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:28:29 2008. Well, I believe that ANYONE, gay or straight, that gets married is nuts. |
|
|
| (380817) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:38:26 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Nov 6 11:35:45 2008. I used to think the same, until I met my wife. |
|
|
| (380827) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 6 11:49:39 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:30:06 2008. Yes - that is my first thought - if the answer is negative only then do I think the worst... |
|
|
| (380833) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by lbt 9415 on Thu Nov 6 12:12:46 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by J trainloco on Thu Nov 6 08:19:55 2008. You dont even need to go to a club...just go to craigslistNever been to a club I take it? |
|
|
| (380836) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 6 12:16:32 2008, in response to Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 02:07:30 2008. i saw the riots there !!in the hollywierd sectionthe city of fruits and nuts as the east costers call it amazing |
|
|
| (380845) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 13:04:24 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Nov 6 03:55:17 2008. How low should the voting age go, then? |
|
|
| (380870) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 6 13:57:51 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Nov 6 11:20:05 2008. thats what I say I voted ''yes on 8 here'' and most californiansagreed with ME the will of the people is IN and its the LAW |
|
|
| (380872) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Nov 6 13:58:55 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:15:19 2008. Seems that way doesn't it?It also seems if you can't get gay rights thru the state courts, you get it thru the state house/senate. If you can't get it there, you take it to the state courts! |
|
|
| (380890) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 14:23:15 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Nov 6 03:13:05 2008. There are lots of those. |
|
|
| (380895) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 14:28:56 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 03:03:01 2008. Marriage is a separation of church and state issue, to boot, and outside matters related purely to sexual lives of human beings. What's the purpose of a "civil" marriage?The logical conclusion from the above is that not only should the government not recognize "gay" marriages, but it shouldn't recognize "straight" marriages either. |
|
|
| (380896) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 14:30:51 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 14:28:56 2008. What does government recognition do, in particular, though? Marriage is a religious institution per se, is it not? |
|
|
| (380911) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 6 14:49:01 2008, in response to Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 02:07:30 2008. Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8November 6, 2008 Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- After losing at the polls, gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters. "If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," said Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. "But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society." Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters. The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved "a broader scope of changes," said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case "a stretch." LATimes.com |
|
|
| (380919) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Nov 6 14:58:34 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 14:30:51 2008. What does government recognition do, in particular, though?Certain tax benefits are only available to married people. Ditto certain employer benefits such as mandating spousal consent for a retirement pension for your life only. Things to do with inheritance - your spouse is your automatic beneficiary for part of your estate if you don't have a will. And more .... |
|
|
| (380922) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Nov 6 15:01:22 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by AlM on Thu Nov 6 14:58:34 2008. Funny thing is, I think that if two men or two women have a civil union, they should be entitled to employer benefits, retirement pensions, etc..... I just object to use of the word "Marriage". |
|
|
| (380937) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 15:13:28 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Nov 6 15:01:22 2008. Some object to other rights as well. Arkansas just passed a law that couples have to be married to adopt children and since gay couples can't marry... |
|
|
| (380938) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 15:16:20 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 15:13:28 2008. Some object to other rights as wellWhat is a "right"? I thought that rights were defined in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Driving isn't even a right, but look at how many drivers we're surrounded with, of varying skill and temperaments. |
|
|
| (380941) | |
Update (Re: Gay protest in LA) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 15:20:27 2008, in response to Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 02:07:30 2008. There is a protest today at 2pm in front of some Mormon Temple in LA. There is lots of talk about boycotting everything Mormon. Most of the "Yes on 8" money came from the LDS. Millions and millions of it.Also, most people are now saying that the courts will apply this law retroactively. If California's constitution says that gay marriage is not recognized then that means all gay marriages, even those already sanctioned. They're saying that it's similar to a law banning slavery. You can't get around it by saying that you already had slaves before the law was passed. |
|
|
| (380944) | |
Re: Update (Re: Gay protest in LA) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Nov 6 15:30:18 2008, in response to Update (Re: Gay protest in LA), posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 15:20:27 2008. This is going to get ugly! |
|
|
| (380946) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Nov 6 15:32:24 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Nov 6 15:01:22 2008. Funny thing is, I think that if two men or two women have a civil union, they should be entitled to employer benefits, retirement pensions, etc..... I just object to use of the word "Marriage".If federal rules recognized civil unions for all those purposes (including heterosexual civil unions) I think the fuss about gay marriage would die down considerably. |
|
|
| (380948) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Nov 6 15:36:00 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by AlM on Thu Nov 6 15:32:24 2008. There would probably be some heat out there because some people would say a "civil union" is not a 'marriage". |
|
|
| (380949) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 15:38:56 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 6 14:49:01 2008. There will be lots of lawsuits, but they're not going to win according to what I've heard. |
|
|
| (380951) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Nov 6 15:43:21 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 15:16:20 2008. Driving isn't even a right, but look at how many drivers we're surrounded with, of varying skill and temperaments.That reminds me of driver's ed classes a long time ago -- "Driving is a privilege, not a right..." |
|
|
| (380953) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 6 15:45:02 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 15:38:56 2008. no chance at at all the will of the people has spoken and its theLAW abd thats it easy |
|
|
| (380954) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Nov 6 15:46:44 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Nov 6 15:43:21 2008. "Driving is a privilege, not a right..."Then add this... One which can be taken away as well Heard that in a defensive driving class myself.. |
|
|
| (380985) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:30:11 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Nov 6 06:26:25 2008. You can't "steal" what is being broadcast into the air. If people want to keep their wireless for themselves, they can encrypt.Here in NYC, there are quite a few "broadcast" wi-fi signals which are intended for the use of all...(CBS Times Square signal, Union Square Partnership, Central Park wi-fi, etc...) |
|
|
| (380991) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:37:12 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:19:08 2008. I seiously beg to differ with you. Gay marriage is an issue of the same depth and meaning as interracial marriage was in the Sixties. The SCOTUS heard Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 and settled the issue by legalizing interacial marriage as a Constitutionally protected activity under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.Relegating gays and lesbians to second-class citizenship by denying them the right to marry is every bit as abhorrent to the principles of democracy and equality as Jim Crow-era laws were, in making people of color "less than". People of color didn't "compromise" during the Sixties on human rights. Gays shouldn't accept compromise today, for the same reasons. |
|
|
| (380992) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 16:48:51 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by AlM on Thu Nov 6 15:32:24 2008. Of course, that only leads to the next issue -- suppose 3 people want to form a "civil union". Or suppose one person wants to form more than one "civil union".My instinct is that government should be out of the marriage game entirely. I recognize that this may have implications for protections of non-working spouses and others, so I'd like to find a better solution. If the "civil union" has the same rights and responsiblities as "marriage" (specfically the sharing of assets and liabilities in divorce) then I'd be more for it. You don't want to create a situation where roommates can form a short-term "civil union" in order to take advantage of the tax laws or to get free health insurance. |
|
|
| (380993) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 16:50:12 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:37:12 2008. I think that what it comes down to (for the non-religious) is if you believe that people are born gay, then it's a civil rights issue. If you believe that people choose to be gay, then it's not. |
|
|
| (380999) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 6 17:08:10 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:37:12 2008. Seriously and all kidding aside - If you had asked me this question a year ago I was opposed to the very principle of gay marriage HOWEVER I have since changed my mind and completely agree with your line of thought on the issue.The majority should not be able to deprive anyone of what should be a basic right. |
|
|
| (381002) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 17:13:10 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:37:12 2008. Where is the "right to marry" in the Constitution? And are race and sexual orientation the same thing? |
|
|
| (381003) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 17:13:35 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 6 17:08:10 2008. What made you change your mind? |
|
|
| (381004) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Nov 6 17:17:10 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:37:12 2008. in making people of color "less than".I think it was 2/5ths of a man.... |
|
|
| (381005) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Nov 6 17:17:38 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:37:12 2008. in making people of color "less than".I think it was 2/5ths of a man.... |
|
|
| (381006) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Nov 6 17:18:16 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Railman718 on Thu Nov 6 17:17:38 2008. Opps double post sorry.. |
|
|
| (381009) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Nov 6 17:21:46 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 16:48:51 2008. My instinct is that government should be out of the marriage game entirely. I recognize that this may have implications for protections of non-working spouses and others, so I'd like to find a better solution.Government does have its value. ERISA's requirement that spouses have to consent in writing to an employee getting a life annuity has done more to cure poverty of the elderly than just about anything else the govt has done in the last 40 years. Before that a lot of husbands "forgot" to ask their wives' opinions. |
|
|
| (381014) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Nov 6 17:24:29 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:30:11 2008. I have wireless connections but i have mines encrypted.Get yer own signal or jack somebody else's.. |
|
|
| (381037) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Nov 6 18:02:54 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 14:28:56 2008. That is my stance in general. |
|
|
| (381040) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Nov 6 18:09:21 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 14:28:56 2008. That's a good idea. |
|
|
| (381043) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 6 18:13:56 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 17:13:35 2008. Some of the models I work with are artists who invited me to a number of art gallery parties. The topic came up in several conversations and I began to understand the other side of the issue.. |
|
|
| (381045) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 18:21:13 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 17:13:10 2008. Marriage has been jus gentium since the late 15th century, and has been carried over in the full-faith-and-credit provision of Article IV, Section I of our Constitution. |
|
|
| (381071) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Nov 6 18:53:06 2008, in response to Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 02:07:30 2008. I am more than pleased about the passing of Prop 8. Let me qualify my comment by saying that I am not anti-gay! I am against gay marriage for reasons other than the moral or religious issues but that's not why I'm happy about the passage of Prop 8. The hidden message of Prop 8 is that the electorate will not tolerate these arrogant judges legislating from the bench. I applaud the good people of california for telling the judges to do their job and not the job others were elected to do. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||