Oh yay, another political thread! (Prop 8, gay marriage stuff)

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Yeah I guess I did miss the point because I assumed you had an actual argument rooted in reality here as opposed to a fictitious point which doesn't really go anywhere beyond it's own stating.

Yeah you completely missed it again.

[sleepy jack]

Yeah then I'm not getting your point. You said we're all equal under the law because no one can have same-sex marriage. I said that I disagree with that logic because it makes the assumption that heterosexual marriage is for some reason more moral. You told me I missed the point. I then thought "well that is fair since I was attacking the morality behind the law as opposed to the reality." I then pointed out that the reality is not all United States citizens are equal under the law because you can have same-sex marriage in 1/10 of the United States. Meaning that 1/10 of the United States (state wise not population wise) is more equal (to put it in Orwellian terms) than the rest. You again said I missed the point...so enlighten me. What is your point? I thought it was that we're all equal in the eyes of the law because no one can have same-sex marriage and if that's the case I don't see how I've missed that point at all seeing as it was what I was responded to from two different aspects.

[asshat]

I thought the whole idea of putting *** marriage up to a vote was ludicrous, as ludicrous as putting the civil rights of any other minority group up to a popular vote. I find it even more absurd that they would require a constitutional ammendment to deny full legal equality to certain groups.

What it boils down to is that two consenting adults should be able to do what the hell they please. The whole "tradition, nature, and pro-creation" arguments are a lark.

I noticed that *** is a dirty word , I guess there's a lot of 13-year old dudes who think things are *** on this forum.

[TheBig3]

Who's (politically) asking for a Constitutional *** marriage ban?

[asshat]

I'm talking about the constitutional ammendment that bush and several others sought to clearly define marriage as "between one man and one woman".Up here in canada stephen harper sought something like that.

....the point of proposition 8 was to change californias state constitution to more clearly define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

....I'm not sure where obama stands on it now, I heard he'd accept civil unions but might have been in favour of the same ammendment that bush was.

[TheBig3]

Yeah that's what I thought you were talking about. Rove probably suggested he ask for a federal amendment, which people inherently resist. It squashed the issue. Bush wanted it "very badly" but people didn't want to go that far.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Bush wanted it "very badly" but people didn't want to go that far.

Hot.

[Freebase Dali]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Hot.

You so nasty.

[TheBig3]

As soon as I can find it, I'll post it but last night on Hardball they had the two lawyers from the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court battle on the show. They are working together this time to defeat Prop 8 on the grounds that it runs in the face of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (Equal protection under the law.)

As you can imagine, these guys are very good, and they handled every question as if it came with an obvious solution. if you can find it, its a very solid argument and I'd be very suprised if they don't ultimatly overturn Prop 8 and return *** Marriage to a legal status in California.

The split ruling helps their case as well, and I can't help but think that the court dangled it out there like a challenge to bring the case back up again.

[adidasss]

There's also a very good article on advocate.com which explains why most LGBTQ organizations are opposed to filing a federal law suite at this moment. Here's the crux of it:

The suit is an about-face to longstanding strategy among LGBT legal groups that have advocated a state-by-state approach to create the momentum needed for a successful challenge at the federal level.

“We have only one shot at the U.S. Supreme Court, and any attorneys bringing a case that will affect the freedom and legal status of an entire community bear a very heavy responsibility to be certain they have fully considered the consequences,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights who served as lead counsel for the Prop. 8 challenge.

On Wednesday a coalition of LGBT organizations, including Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign, released a statement discouraging couples from filing federal suits -- in part because the court is currently unlikely to rule that a federal constitutional right exists for same-sex couples to marry, they claim.

“We think the risks of a negative decision that would harm *** people are greater then the potential benefits,” said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel and marriage project director for Lambda Legal.

Methinks these people are in it only for the fame...:\