Decision on Prop 8 pending

[Newbunkle]

Excellent news.

It seems the bigots will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Aww.

 

[Cutlass]

Now to beat the bigots elsewhere.

 

[civver_764]

Absolutely. I am all for the citizens having a say in their government and that they should have the absolute right to define marriage however they desire.

Do citizens get to define whether or not interracial marriages are allowed?

What do you think of the idea that the state just stops recognizing marriages? This is to all who support prop 8.

 

[JtheJackal]

Nice to have some good news once and awhile. Once it goes to the Supreme Court there will be gay marriage throughout the land!

 

[civ_king]

Do citizens get to define whether or not interracial marriages are allowed?

What do you think of the idea that the state just stops recognizing marriages? This is to all who support prop 8.

the Old Testament effectively allows interracial marriage

 

[MobBoss]

You're obviously for Mob rule.

No, I am not a fan of anarchy. But I think the majority should have a say in some things, absolutely.

I'm cool when things are like, 70/30. But when its 52/48, there are clear splits

I hear you, and some states require a super-majority in order to amend state consitutions. Apparently, California doesnt. But we dont have the government we wish we had...we have the government we have, and currently a 70/30 split carries the same weight of approval as a 52/48 does.

My ideal solution is civil unions for all and churches being private entities can marry who they want. That way say, if baptists want to protect marriage, they can, because they only recognize baptist marriages in their church, thus marraige for them is protected.

There is nothing in any law that I know of right now that prevents homosexuals from trading rings and vows and claiming to be married for all intents and purposes. It just wont be recognized by the state, much like your suggestion for the Baptists above.

simple. effective. respectful.

And not really in tune with reality.

Not in this case. The majority doesn't get to decide what's right and what's wrong.

This isnt a right/wrong issue. Its a 'how are we going to define marriage' issue. And in that particular case, the majority should indeed be able to decide how marriage is going to be defined. Even SCOTUS has said the states have the right to do this previously (if I am not mistaken).

Do citizens get to define whether or not interracial marriages are allowed?

Is this a race issue? No. Next question.

What do you think of the idea that the state just stops recognizing marriages? This is to all who support prop 8.

I think it has about as much chance as zombie Reagan rising again to be elected in 2012. That is...about nil.

Nice to have some good news once and awhile. Once it goes to the Supreme Court there will be gay marriage throughout the land!

I am willing to bet the family farm that this isnt going to be the case.

 

[Cutlass]

Nice to have some good news once and awhile. Once it goes to the Supreme Court there will be gay marriage throughout the land!

No guarantees. Remember, the reactionaries have been staffing the Supremes with activists for decades.

 

[MobBoss]

Now to beat the bigots elsewhere.

Just a hint, but maybe, just maybe, you may want to rethink referring to the majority of people in the USA as 'them bigots'....because honestly, doing so isnt really helping you out that much, if at all. In fact, I would think such polarization does more against it than for it.

But hey, I am just a reasonable guy, what do I know.

 

[useless]

Sorry, it's difficult to avoid calling people bigots when they are, even if they are in the majority, Mob.

 

[emzie]

No guarantees. Remember, the reactionaries have been staffing the Supremes with activists for decades.

Yeah. Really, both sides were going to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court if they lost, so a first stage victory doesn't mean much. I'll be gloating and celebrating if the Supreme Court affirms this ruling. Though Kennedy has leaned to the left on the issue of gay rights, I won't hold my breath.

Sorry, it's difficult to avoid calling people bigots when they are, even if they are in the majority, Mob.

Mobby, I really do like you. But in this case, yeah. Being against gay marriage is generally a bigoted thing in my book. And I really do think my kids generation will be perplexed by the gay rights debate as much as I often am perplexed by the civil rights debate.

 

[Cutlass]

Just a hint, but maybe, just maybe, you may want to rethink referring to the majority of people in the USA as 'them bigots'....because honestly, doing so isnt really helping you out that much, if at all. In fact, I would think such polarization does more against it than for it.

But hey, I am just a reasonable guy, what do I know.

Bigot is as bigot does. You constantly argue that people should not be permitted basic Constitutional rights simply because of your personal prejudices and hatred of freedom. The fact that the majority may be bigots does not change the fact that they are bigots.

 

[The Imp]

Bigots, you have lost.

Not yet. This will probably reach the supreme court.

 

[JtheJackal]

No guarantees. Remember, the reactionaries have been staffing the Supremes with activists for decades.

I have seen enough of the judicial system to believe the Supreme Court will follow precedent and the Constitution in these kind of issues.

 

[useless]

Just a hint, but maybe, just maybe, you may want to rethink referring to the majority of people in the USA as 'them bigots'....because honestly, doing so isnt really helping you out that much, if at all. In fact, I would think such polarization does more against it than for it.

But hey, I am just a reasonable guy, what do I know.

We could literally swap this scenario with that of those who denied and attempted to deny rights to black people. Your comments are nothing more then apologism for the bigots, and although you may not realise it, they are offensive.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Just a hint, but maybe, just maybe, you may want to rethink referring to the majority of people in the USA as 'them bigots'....because honestly, doing so isnt really helping you out that much, if at all. In fact, I would think such polarization does more against it than for it.

But hey, I am just a reasonable guy, what do I know.

Sorry, it's difficult to avoid calling people bigots when they are, even if they are in the majority, Mob.

Bigot is as bigot does. You constantly argue that people should not be permitted basic Constitutional rights simply because of your personal prejudices and hatred of freedom. The fact that the majority may be bigots does not change the fact that they are bigots.

Moderator Action: Warning to all!!! Enough of the name calling. Please refrain from using "bigot" or any of it derivations any more. Find another word that is less inflammatory, please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[useless]

I do understand why people do not get the similiarities between race and sexuality, but the fact is that both of those deal with human rights that were lacking for both.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I was discussing this with my dad at the dinner table and he pointed something out I hadn't thought of: this decision is likely to go to the Supreme Court, where it will likely be overturned by the conservative majority. So this is an empty victory

 

[emzie]

Some how, I think if this was a thread on interracial marriage, and people were arguing for a ban, we wouldn't be expected to ignore the racist tone.

 

[useless]

Doesn't matter, it was still a victory.

 

[emzie]

I was discussing this with my dad at the dinner table and he pointed something out I hadn't thought of: this decision is likely to go to the Supreme Court, where it will likely be overturned by the conservative majority. So this is an empty victory

Uh, that was a pretty obvious implication? Don't be so despondent. Kennedy has ruled in favour of gay rights more often than not.