WeTheArmed.com

General Topics => General Non-Firearms Discussion => Topic started by: StevenTing on November 04, 2008, 01:40:44 pm

Title: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: StevenTing on November 04, 2008, 01:40:44 pm
I've heard arguments on both sides.  Now there is this Video that is making the rounds.  I know this is a sensitive subject but I just heard about this ad that is going to be released.  It kinda bashes a religion a little bit and I don't want to start an argument on religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE)

Here's an article denouncing the ad.

http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/outrageous-no-on-8-commercial-sinks-to-new-lows-utterly-condemned-for-religious-bigotry-and-intolerance (http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/outrageous-no-on-8-commercial-sinks-to-new-lows-utterly-condemned-for-religious-bigotry-and-intolerance)

For me, this line says it all.

Quote
"After all, the No on 8 campaign has been running their own television commercials saying we must all oppose discrimination and intolerance whenever we see it. The bigotry this ad shows to members of the LDS church demands action now."
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 04, 2008, 02:08:53 pm
   Don't give a hoot about  the supposed "rights" of Same-Sex couples. 

   The ad is not a characterization of American Law in any context.

/ :neener :neener :neener :neener :neener :neener

  Now,  an Amendment to the Constitution to ensure marriage as a legal condition between man and woman,  would be just fine.

    [Oh,  I'm sorry!  Did I write something that was not Politically Correct?  Darn.]

 :neener :neener :neener :neener :neener :neener :neener :neener :neener :neener :neener

/
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Outbreak on November 04, 2008, 03:03:28 pm
I'm not gonna get into the same-sex marriage thing here. Its not really a hot-button issue for me. What I do know is that those women in the video had their wedding rings and marriage license stolen when they should've had two dead intruders on the door mat. :uzi
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Skeptic49 on November 04, 2008, 03:06:22 pm
All same sex marriage will do is increase the income of Divorce Lawyers. 

Geoff
Who figures enough said.  :cuss
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Doug Wojtowicz on November 04, 2008, 03:10:56 pm
Two wrongs never make a right.

'Sides, if folks are willing to enter into a wholly monagamous relationship for the rest of their living days, no gub'mint piece of paper can say otherwise.  GTFO of my bedroom, Congress!   :cuss
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 04, 2008, 04:43:44 pm
I'm LDS.  I attend my meetings, hold a temple recommend, and subscribe wholly to the doctrines of the church.

When Utah had on Referendum the state constitutional amendment that would "define" marriage as solely between a man and a woman, I voted against it.  I know I'm in the minority but I stand by my decision.

I know that the family's under attack these days.  Lazy and hedonistic men will impregnate and evade, never taking responsibility for the rearing of their own offspring.  Cultural movements are pushing to deemphasis the two parent home model.

But you can't protect the family with government.  The government is inherently corrupt and has recently proven a massive inclination to capitulate to the whining of evil people.  By setting a precedent that legislature, votes, and courts can dictate the nature of something as sacred and as eternal as family, we open the door for corrupt and evil people to attack the family with total impunity from behind the protection of fancy badges, legal documents, and popular vote.

I have a duty to protect the family -- and most importantly, MY family -- from the evils of the world.  In order to do so, I want the state uninvolved with the anatomy and structure of my family.  No twisted bureaucrat is going to tell me how we live.

And whoever made that ad is a douchebag just looking for a fight.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: GeorgeHill on November 04, 2008, 05:27:09 pm
The ad said one thing that was correct.  Members of the church donated money.  Not The Church.  There is a difference there.
That being said... I am against discrimination.  I also don't believe the goverment has a right to interfere with personal relationships.
The guys that made that ad.  I'd like to shake their hands and congradulate them on exercising their first amendment rights.  And then I'd kick them square in the balls. 
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Doug Wojtowicz on November 04, 2008, 05:37:28 pm
I was in town when the Mormon mothers spoke up in opposition to "Prop 8."

The ad said one thing that was correct.  Members of the church donated money.  Not The Church.  There is a difference there.
That being said... I am against discrimination.  I also don't believe the goverment has a right to interfere with personal relationships.

Why you're my hero, Ogre.

Quote
The guys that made that ad.  I'd like to shake their hands and congradulate them on exercising their first amendment rights.  And then I'd kick them square in the balls. 

I never saw a man lifted three feet into the air by their crotch before.  Try to catch it on video.   O0
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: StevenTing on November 04, 2008, 05:59:45 pm
While I generally don't like to have things defined in the law, my question comes from a legal/liability stand point.  In California, the supreme court has approved Same Sex Marriages. Prop 8 is trying to define it as between a man and a woman.

But, since Same Sex Marriages have been legally defined, how does that affect churches that refuse to perform those marriages?  I'm assuming in the state of California, that they would be in violation of the law.  If they don't perform them, someone could sue a church.  That church could then potentially use their tax exempt status.

I had a friend say that it won't affect churches because we can't discriminate based off race, religion,etc.  But, since Same Sex marriages are now law, they could sue.  It's no longer about religion but now about a violation of law.

Is my thinking flawed?  I'm not a lawyer, but this is how I interpret it.  This could open up any church that will not perform a same-sex marriage to a lawsuit.  Someone please tell me where I'm wrong.

Because of these possible lawsuits, this would be the only reason I'm for Prop 8.  Otherwise, I would vote against it and leave it undefined.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Doug Wojtowicz on November 04, 2008, 06:30:17 pm
Neither the Church(es) nor the State should influence each other.

A legal civil union under government auspices is not the same as forcing a Church to acknowledge X marriage.

In my case, I, a Roman Catholic, have a lifelong relationship with a woman who had been divorced in the Mormon Church.

If I truly gave more than two fecal pellets about what the Vatican says about my everlasting union with her, then no marriage would be allowed to be legal.  But the Church is not law.  The Church can also kiss my hairy, pimpled white butt saying that I'm committing a sin for loving a woman who was dumped by a microcephalic, abusive sleeze.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Outbreak on November 04, 2008, 06:37:03 pm
Yes, steven, your logic is flawed. The issue they are looking at is legal marriage, not religious marriage. Churches won't be sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples because in the eyes of the law, the ceremony at the church is not legally binding. Couples still need a Marriage License from the government to be legally married.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Medikman on November 04, 2008, 06:49:36 pm
Yes, steven, your logic is flawed. The issue they are looking at is legal marriage, not religious marriage. Churches won't be sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples because in the eyes of the law, the ceremony at the church is not legally binding. Couples still need a Marriage License from the government to be legally married.

Not necessarily true, most if not all marriages preformed at any denomination are legally binding. The churches are granted licenses from the state to preform a legal marriage. If a church then refuses to preform a same sex marriage, and the couple pursues it legally the government could potentially revoke the license for that church
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: StevenTing on November 04, 2008, 06:52:43 pm
Yes, steven, your logic is flawed. The issue they are looking at is legal marriage, not religious marriage. Churches won't be sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples because in the eyes of the law, the ceremony at the church is not legally binding. Couples still need a Marriage License from the government to be legally married.

So if someone comes to my church with a marriage certificate and want a same-sex marriage, and the Bishop/Preacher/Reverend, says no, they won't do it, that doesn't open them up to a lawsuit?  If state-law says the marriage is legal, how can my church refuse?  Wouldn't they be discriminating then?
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: StevenTing on November 04, 2008, 06:53:25 pm
Not necessarily true, most if not all marriages preformed at any denomination are legally binding. The churches are granted licenses from the state to preform a legal marriage. If a church then refuses to preform a same sex marriage, and the couple pursues it legally the government could potentially revoke the license for that church

I think this is the main worry of my Church, the LDS church.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: bensdad on November 04, 2008, 06:56:57 pm
I'm ready to say, "smaller government at any and all costs."  I don't want ANY new laws/taxes/programs/commissions/agencies/agents/regulations/yadayadayada.  If the govt. were half its current size, it would still be too big.  I'm pretty sure the word marriage has a meaning already.  I'm also pretty sure we don't need the government to protect it.  
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Outbreak on November 04, 2008, 06:57:18 pm
Medikman, thanks for the info. I stand [sorta] corrected. Steven, the only other thing I can see that would protect churches from lawsuit is the separation of church and state. They can't tell people what they can or cannot believe, and most major faiths do not allow same-sex marriage as part of their dogma.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: StevenTing on November 04, 2008, 06:59:48 pm
Medikman, thanks for the info. I stand [sorta] corrected. Steven, the only other thing I can see that would protect churches from lawsuit is the separation of church and state. They can't tell people what they can or cannot believe, and most major faiths do not allow same-sex marriage as part of their dogma.

The problem comes where most churches agree to follow the law of the land.  In this case, the law of the land says it's legal.  By not performing the same sex marriage, the church is disenfranchising those people or limiting their rights.  I think this reasoning would cause a church to lose a lawsuit.  Stupid Lawyers.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: GeorgeHill on November 04, 2008, 07:03:18 pm
I think this is the main worry of my Church, the LDS church.
It's not a worry.  They will say no, and if a legal battle comes of it - they'll fight it.  That and any same sex couple that comes forward asking it, will be kicked out of the church.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 04, 2008, 08:03:44 pm
Being pro gay rights, I'd like to weigh in a bit here.
The ad was distasteful and hurtful.
If LDS is funding Prop 8, that's their business. Their right as American citizens, as I see it.
Now, having said that, I think that gays have a right to get married, etc. I also think that polygamous families should be legal.
But I also think that the government should not have anything to do with marriage, heterosexual, homosexual or polygamous.
With that comes the right for churches to deny marriage to couples of their choosing. If the church doesn't like that they are same sex, they can refuse. If they don't like that they are polygamous, they can refuse. Heck, if they don't like heterosexual couples, they can refuse them, or even maybe they just think the couple is ugly.  ;)
Churches shouldn't be forced to do anything, nor should they force anyone to do anything (or desist in doing anything).
People make too much of a deal of marriage. I understand that so many of you are fighting the good fight in trying to preserve the honest, productive family, and that is a noble goal, but I think there is a confusion of enemies for some.
I am not sure I can go any further without offending anyone, so...
I guess I'll just let everyone chew on that for a bit.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: FMJ on November 04, 2008, 08:17:10 pm
Is that how the BATFE operates?

I think the Ad is flawed because those gentlemen identified themselves as members of LDS Church and not as government employees.  EVERYBODY knows about the separation of church and state.

In legal terms is a civil-union not the same thing as a marriage?  Or do the gays just want to be called Mr. and Mr.? 
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Stevie-Ray on November 04, 2008, 08:17:40 pm
   Don't give a hoot about  the supposed "rights" of Same-Sex couples. 
The ad is not a characterization of American Law in any context.
 Now,  an Amendment to the Constitution to ensure marriage as a legal condition between man and woman,  would be just fine.
[Oh,  I'm sorry!  Did I write something that was not Politically Correct?  Darn.]
I couldn't have said it any better.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Outbreak on November 04, 2008, 08:18:51 pm
Bingo, Nolo. Thats proper libertarian thinking. Keep the gummint out of my business, the LDS business, the gays' business, the gun owners' business, and everyone else's business.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 04, 2008, 08:22:00 pm
Holy Crap!
I'm in the positive for Karma???
No way...
 ;D
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 04, 2008, 10:00:02 pm


   
Quote
Neither the Church(es) nor the State should influence each other.----Doug Wojtowicz

     Strange point Doug.  That would deprive  many Americans of their political rights,  and a representative government of its power to govern.

/
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Skunk Ape on November 04, 2008, 11:52:17 pm
We've already established that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional.  Every adult deserves the opportunity to legally marry the person they love, regardless of the plumbing.  I realize that this will likely lead to the redefinition of marriage as being whatever the consenting adults contractually agree to, but hey, this is America and grownups have the right to make their own choices.  But then, I also grew up reading Heinlein, so large, extended marriages are not exactly shocking to my sensibilties.

I don't believe that any church should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that they object to.  If all else fails, there's always Elvis.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Doug Wojtowicz on November 05, 2008, 12:00:43 am

   
     Strange point Doug.  That would deprive  many Americans of their political rights,  and a representative government of its power to govern.

/


Really?  The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid Church interference, and they wanted to avoid Government interference in religion.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: DRZinn on November 05, 2008, 01:31:46 am
Get government the hell out of marriage entirely. The only reason it's even an issue is because Government grants certain privileges and benefits to married couples. End the special treatment, and you won't have the irony of gays clamoring for "equal" special treatment.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 05, 2008, 09:11:57 am
/

Really? The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid Church interference, and they wanted to avoid Government interference in religion. --Doug W

 Doug, a nation is bound by laws, rather than by a vague ethic identified as what the founding fathers "wanted".


"Church interference" as you refer to it,; is inclusive of the rights of church members to actively practice Civil Rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, I will be more than happy to explain it to you.

By your simplistic standard, any political activity whatsoever, is "Church interference".


Or you might consider it in this context my friend. If the 2nd Amendment; expressly states that their shall be no "infringement" on the right to keep and bear, it is similarly valid that no infringement upon rights to political advocacy are equally valid.

In that regard, if you insist upon restrictions at law; to restrain "church interference"it violates the religious clause of the First Amendment.

/

/Looks like 8 passes in Cali anyway....Yippeeee.....to heck with "activist" courts.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/3384493/Proposition-8-ballot-to-ban-gay-marriage-set-to-pass-in-California.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/3384493/Proposition-8-ballot-to-ban-gay-marriage-set-to-pass-in-California.html)


According to other online sources, A ban on gay marriage was approved in Arizona and a similar measure looked set to pass in Florida. Meanwhile in Arkansas, voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.

 And with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, along with his pledge to force the legitimization of homosexual behavior on America, other states may yet be victimized by judicial activism.

/


/
Edited to remove all of the nbsp's.  It was making it hard to read.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Doug Wojtowicz on November 05, 2008, 12:35:48 pm
"Church interference" as you refer to it,; is inclusive of the rights of church members to actively practice Civil Rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, I will be more than happy to explain it to you.

By your simplistic standard, any political activity whatsoever, is "Church interference".

*sigh*

 :banghead
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Oohrah on November 05, 2008, 02:02:58 pm
Not a problem with the Gay relationships.   However, same status
decreed by law, and equal treatment for benefits :banghead well
maybe.   Seems like gun control, where does this go and when does
it end?   Somehow it seems like opening Pandora Box.   Don't ask,
don't tell, worked really well in the service under Clinton right?
Let's see also turns into hate crimes, discrimination, and the list
still continues.   This is all before church, and 1st amendment gets
consideration.   Nope, would like to see this remain as is I think.
Probably if not for Hollywood, it would not be a consideration.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 05, 2008, 02:05:34 pm
     "Edited to remove all of the nbsp's.  It was making it hard to read."---the ...er....Editor

    They took out all those   nbsp's?    Oh great!  That was the only proof I had that the  Aliens had landed!

   Now what am I supposed to do?

             :o :o :o :o :o
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 05, 2008, 02:08:20 pm
Okay, let's get one thing straight:

From a legal standpoint, marriage is not a right.  It's a privilege.  Just like driving and concealed carry in most states.  Anything you're required to have a license for is not a right, it is a privilege.

States require licenses for you to get married and thus, it is not a right.  It is something the state, by virtue of its magnanimity, may permit.  But rights are things that you can do without any bureaucrats' permission.  Rights are something that require no consent from any other person than yourself.

When gay marriage is concerned, those who promote it are not demanding equal rights, they are begging for equal privilege.  They want the state to endorse or condone them -- which is something that the state may or may not do according to its whims.  They want to be coddled by the state like it were some loving, supportive parent who says "Whatever you decide, we're 100% behind you!"

If you think marriage is your right, then you should want the government out of it.  From a legal stand point, this means you push the matter entirely into the purview of contract law.  You remove licensing, tax quirks, and all those other weird legal idiosyncrasies that have been attached to the matter and leave it be.

If one church prescribes a certain kind of contract as acceptable marriage, that's their decision.  It won't be a matter of church meddling with state.  It will be a church offering its consent.  This, in no way, violates the principles advocated in the First Amendment.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Brian Dale on November 05, 2008, 02:16:01 pm
Quote from: Oohrah
However, same status decreed by law, and equal treatment for benefits  :banghead well maybe.   Seems like gun control, where does this go and when does it end?

Uh-oh; you've mentioned the elephant in the room.

I haven't seen anybody arguing against the special rights that are granted to heterosexual married couples by the government. Funny, that. Can't be compelled by subpoena to testify against a spouse in court...may choose to file tax returns individually or jointly, as they please...what else?

Those rights don't depend on having children or even on being fertile.

Some folks don't want to let those icky gays and lesbians into their club, though.

Hm.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 05, 2008, 02:24:11 pm
Quote
If you think marriage is your right, then you should want the government out of it.  From a legal stand point, this means you push the matter entirely into the purview of contract law.  You remove licensing, tax quirks, and all those other weird legal idiosyncrasies that have been attached to the matter and leave it be.
Exactly my line of thinking. The government has no place in marriage any more than any other contract.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Skunk Ape on November 05, 2008, 02:53:35 pm
Okay, let's get one thing straight:

From a legal standpoint, marriage is not a right.  It's a privilege  

But equal protection under the law is a right.  And denying one group a legal status for no lawful reason is illegal.  This is not that different from the arguments used to justify other injustices.  Back in the day it was God's will and "the natural order of things" that blacks be treated as inferior to whites.  Just like it was "the natural order of things" that women be denied the same opportunites as men.

We either believe in the Bill of Rights or we don't.

Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 05, 2008, 03:26:28 pm


   Nolo, 

   Your proposition about:

  "Exactly my line of thinking.  The government has no place in marriage any more than any other contract."----Nolo

   Is not consistent with the law however.   The idea of state regulation  is a right of the state, because the state has a vested interest in its citizenry.   Matters such as disease enter into the issue.

   The idea that all "rights" are only vested in the INDIVIDUAL, and never in the STATE,   is not an accurate legal argument. 

   I'm not a Lawyer, and would have to do an extensive internet search to dig up the facts,  but   having studied the issue previously,  the state also has the right to regulate marriage.

/ :D :D

     
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: StevenTing on November 05, 2008, 03:31:55 pm
It looks like the bill passed.  While we can debate discourse, I think I'm going to watch and see what the courts do now.  Since the bill passed, my main concern has been put to rest.

Feel free to continue to debate, but remember to be courteous to one another.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 05, 2008, 04:35:26 pm

 
Quote
Nolo,

   Your proposition about:

  "Exactly my line of thinking.  The government has no place in marriage any more than any other contract."----Nolo

   Is not consistent with the law however.   The idea of state regulation  is a right of the state, because the state has a vested interest in its citizenry.   Matters such as disease enter into the issue.

   The idea that all "rights" are only vested in the INDIVIDUAL, and never in the STATE,   is not an accurate legal argument.

   I'm not a Lawyer, and would have to do an extensive internet search to dig up the facts,  but   having studied the issue previously,  the state also has the right to regulate marriage.
Oh, I am sure it's not. Most of my beliefs aren't.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 05, 2008, 04:47:51 pm
But equal protection under the law is a right.  And denying one group a legal status for no lawful reason is illegal.

See, now things get slippery here.  You have a "right" to vote -- but that right can be denied to felons.  And what is a felony?  Well, whatever legislature says.  So if being gay is a felony, you can deny them a vote.

And for some reason, we love to arbitrarily toss the Felony-hammer about.  With millions of pages of federal codes on the books, it's almost impossible not to stumble upon some inane formality that criminalizes you.

Yes, we all deserve equal protection under the law.  But we don't get equal protection FROM the law.  As such, the government will always go after groups of people for whatever reason it wants and will get its way regardless of what's right or wrong.

I think it's important that, if the "gay rights" movement really wants to move their objective forward in a functional and lasting way, they need to FIRST stop begging for permission from the state and start reminding the state exactly what authority it has over their lives.  
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Brian Dale on November 05, 2008, 05:04:16 pm
Quote from: BruceRDucer
Is not consistent with the law however.   The idea of state regulation  is a right of the state, because the state has a vested interest in its citizenry.   Matters such as disease enter into the issue.

Nonsense. Balderdash. Utter hogwash and a faulty statement.

The state's "vested interest" in a human being is a fantasy. The state has no ownership of human beings. "Vested" is a term with a specific meaning and it's inapplicable in the statement that I've quoted.

People have rights. We grant to the states certain powers and authority in order to do particular things.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 05, 2008, 06:05:50 pm
People have rights. We grant to the states certain powers and authority in order to do particular things.

<3

Never were more beautiful words posted on any webforum. . . unless those words said the same thing that these ones do.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: VT Hunter on November 05, 2008, 06:12:02 pm
Same sex marriage is wrong anywhere, anytime, in any circumstance. 
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 05, 2008, 08:01:58 pm
Quote
The state's "vested interest" in a human being is a fantasy. The state has no ownership of human beings. "Vested" is a term with a specific meaning and it's inapplicable in the statement that I've quoted.

People have rights. We grant to the states certain powers and authority in order to do particular things.----Brian Dale

     If there were a shed of truth to what you post here,   then it would be also a fact that states in the USA had never regulated marriages.   The fact that states do, indicate that you are utterly ignorant on the subject.

    Moreover,  it is self-evident that Gay & Lesbian activists   specifically pursue recognition and regulation by the state governments,  of  Same Sex unions.  You might want to check your facts.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

/
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 05, 2008, 08:06:06 pm
Quote
If there were a shed of truth to what you post here, then it would be also a fact that states in the USA had never regulated marriages. The fact that states do, indicate that you are utterly ignorant on the subject.
Brian Dale is talking about the very nature of government. People like to give it superhuman status, but in reality government is only given powers by the people who support it.
One can think of government as an extra-societal entity, and I am sure that it would enjoy that very much, but it isn't. It's just a group of people whom the rest of society has put into managerial positions.
Now, society can allow government to do certain things, but the power flows from the bottom up.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: GeorgeHill on November 05, 2008, 08:09:31 pm
Same sex marriage is wrong anywhere, anytime, in any circumstance. 
And so is discrimination.  We wont have it here.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 06, 2008, 11:30:03 am
  to George Hill:

      So where is any discrimination evident?

   The only way normative dialogue of public ballot issues can be be labelled as DISCRIMINATORY,  is that no definition of the term be acknowldged,  and thereafter,  normative discussion be prohibited in a biased manner.

    If a forum  adopts a policy that  normative social behavior  such as Marriage between opposite sexes, and advocacy for it is DISCRIMINATORY,  I know that I'm in a forum which serves as a front  for Gay, Lesbian and other aberrant advocacies.

   
/

/

/
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Mrs. Armoredman on November 06, 2008, 12:00:10 pm
  Anyway you look at it same sex marriage is wrong. God instuited marriage between one man and one woman. It made me sick when I heard some states leagleized same sex marriage. I don't like it at all when I saw the news story on the news.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: JesseL on November 06, 2008, 12:49:25 pm
The fact that large numbers of people think something is wrong is not, by itself, a good enough reason for the government to prevent people from doing it.

There are oodles of people in the world who think hunting is wrong. There are even more who think seeing a woman's face in public is wrong. There are more still who think eating pork is wrong. A majority of Americans evidently think voting for McCain was wrong. Some folks think using electricity is wrong.

This nation was founded in large part by people who were minorities in their home countries and persecuted because their countrymen thought they were wrong.

Thank God that America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the right.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 06, 2008, 01:10:51 pm
Quote
Anyway you look at it same sex marriage is wrong. God instuited marriage between one man and one woman. It made me sick when I heard some states leagleized same sex marriage. I don't like it at all when I saw the news story on the news.
It's perfectly okay that you hold that opinion. What is at issue is not what is right or wrong. What is at issue is whether you want the government deciding what is right or wrong for you.
I know I don't.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Skunk Ape on November 06, 2008, 01:26:04 pm
  Anyway you look at it same sex marriage is wrong. God instuited marriage between one man and one woman. It made me sick when I heard some states leagleized same sex marriage. I don't like it at all when I saw the news story on the news.

And Neo-Nazis marching through the streets is wrong, too.  But they still have the legal right to do so.  We are not discussing the morality of homosexuality here, we are discussing the legal rights of American citizens.  Are same sex unions the same as marriage?  The fact that we even have to differentiate suggests otherwise.  If a gay man dies, does his partner receive the deceased federal pension?  What about community property and estate planning?  There are very real economic benefits that accrue with marriage beyond the simple desire to have the same dignity that heterosexuals may have.  Barney Frank may be okay with introducing his partner as "my lover" but I know a whole lot of of gays would prefer to use the terms "husband" or "wife."

Oh, and guys, states don't regulate marriages through the licenses, they simply recognize them.  A marriage license is equivalent to a deed or a lien in that it recognizes an intangible legal relationship.  With the exception of same sex marriage and inter-racial marriage up until the seventies, the clerk of the court is not in the habit of denying or rescinding marriage licenses.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Doug Wojtowicz on November 06, 2008, 01:34:36 pm
If a forum  adopts a policy that  normative social behavior  such as Marriage between opposite sexes, and advocacy for it is DISCRIMINATORY,  I know that I'm in a forum which serves as a front  for Gay, Lesbian and other aberrant advocacies.

Wow.  Just plain wow, Bruce.

Where have you been for the past half decade of MadOgre.com?

George and Chris Byrne, the Anarchangel, might not agree on the AR-15 platform, but those two guys DO not tolerate bigotry. 
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ian on November 06, 2008, 01:40:51 pm
The element the ad gets right is that the opposition to gay marriage is primarily from religious people who look at a gay couple, get outraged that gay people can exist, and try to use the government as a hammer to smite them for being gay. The arguments about disease and church lawsuits are nothing but rationalizations and diversions. If it weren't for the evangelical groups who object on strictly religious grounds, the anti-gay-marriage movement would have the clout of the flat earth society.

There is nothing conceivably immoral about activities conducted by consenting adults. You don't have a right to not be offended - if you don't like something, you don't have to participate.

That said, allowing gay marriage is really just a temporary, stopgap solution. The ideal resolution is, like Nolo said, for government to stop meddling in marriage altogether.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 06, 2008, 03:09:44 pm

   
Quote
We are not discussing the morality of homosexuality here, we are discussing the legal rights of American citizens.-----SkunkApe

    We  "who"?

   I do see moral propositions of RIGHT & WRONG discussed.  You may not be discussing that in particular,  but you are hardly a collective are you?

    ________________________________________________________________________________

     Notwithstanding your claim is  that "legal rights" are discussed. 

    Keeping in mind that Rights for marriage are established at law only within the STATES,   at best,  you are only discussing  the "legal rights" of  any or several states. 

     As yet,  that narrow and selective argument has not been articulated.   If the right does not exist in state law,  it arguably does not exist in fact.   

   One might claim it as a Natural Right   I suppose,  but  then the argumentative propositions assume a different shape.  Which proposal  are you following?

/

   Try again?

Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Mrs. Armoredman on November 06, 2008, 04:39:57 pm
  Legal rights is only part of the story. I don't have a problem with homosexuals or gays. Just as long as they respect the fact that I like men. I am married to one and I have a son with him.

I was friends with a gay lady and she never ever pushed me in any way shape or form. She respected my decisions and I respected hers.

 We Who? is right. Marriage is when one woman and one man are joined together in the presence of God and witness's.  Two people are with eachother till death do them part. The community property deal I have no clue. But don't goverments or anyone tell me being married to a man is wrong. I feel the way I do and I have that right just like everyone else. I respect the bonds of marriage. It means the world to me.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Brian Dale on November 06, 2008, 05:33:22 pm
I'm astounded to see this, BruceRDucer:

Quote from: BruceRDucer
If the right does not exist in state law,  it arguably does not exist in fact.

Contrast that statement with these:

Quote
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Who'll be the first to identify the source of those sentences?


Mrs. Armoredman, in my view, the issue is whether or not it's a good idea for governments to continue to forbid to some other couples the kind of experience that you've described. I don't see any valid reason for retaining the legal limbo in which some couples must exist now.

{previous paragraph edited to acknowledge an edit by Mrs. A - no problem}
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Mrs. Armoredman on November 06, 2008, 06:02:04 pm
 I get so sick of state goverments,celebs,etc. putting marriage through the mud. I discusting. For an example Brittany Spears got married and I believe it was 12 or 24 hours later they divorced.

 Brian Dale, I didn't mean to offend you. I am just tired of all people dragging the word marriage through the sewer. I feel very strongly about marriage. I think y'all already know that. I was married once before and dumped. Marriage is a union that two people enter into knowing full well what they are doing. I hope this clears up all the confussion. Sometimes I don't make sence to me. I will edit my post. I fixed it and I hope I didn't offend anyone badly. It's just marriage is beautiful not ugly.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Khorne on November 06, 2008, 06:19:17 pm
Any question of morality that comes up before the government, must and has always come down to a question of law.  That's what this is.  I have always held the belief that the government has no business in people's personal affairs.  I can't say that and then say the gov should regulate who gets married.  That would be hypocrisy. 
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Skunk Ape on November 06, 2008, 08:45:13 pm
   
    We  "who"?

  Keeping in mind that Rights for marriage are established at law only within the STATES,   at best,  you are only discussing  the "legal rights" of  any or several states. 

In this context "we" refers to this discussion thread.  The topic is whether gays should be denied the legal definition of marriage.  As George has already made clear, ad hominem attacks on the practices of the gay community are off the table.

I have not said that marriage is a right...for anybody.  I do not believe that a "right" to marriage exists beyond the rights of adults to voluntarily enter into contracts. My argument has been that it is wrong for a government entity to treat people disparately under the law.  To say that a government will recognize a marriage between a man and woman and not recognize any other permutation is disparate impact and is wrong.

Nobody has a right to a job.  But if I as an employer refuse to hire Jews, or women, or disabled people, then I am still violating their civil rights.  If you don't agree feel free to contact your state labor board or the EEOC and ask for clarification.  Yes, I am aware that the examples above are protected classes under federal law and that homosexuals per se are not specifically covered, but the principle remains the same.

Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 07, 2008, 08:37:41 am

-"In this context "we" refers to this discussion thread. --Skunk Ape

           The "we" is a self-eviden innacuracy.  Clearly,  issues of Right & Wrong are also being discussed,  contrary to your claim.

____________________________________________________________________________________________


--"As George has already made clear, ad hominem attacks on the practices of the gay community are off the table."----Skunk Ape

    That is self evident.  Where are the "ad hominem attacks".  Have you been "attacked"?

________________________________________________________________________________________

   "I have not said that marriage is a right...for anybody."-----Skunk Ape

    "We are not discussing the morality of homosexuality here, we are discussing the legal rights of American citizens."----Skunk Ape

    "To say that a government will recognize a marriage between a man and woman and not recognize any other permutation is disparate impact and is wrong."----Skunk Ape


      Evidently,  you have contradicted yourself.

   Indeed, you, no less that  other people,   offer evidences for the existence of Right & Wrong.  In that sense,  all citizens are entitled to civil rights.  As civil rights exist at law,  law must recognize only those rights established by legal process.  In that regard,  the entire discussion reduces  to contrasts between:

  (1)  Right & Wrong

  (2)  Legal processes (voting,  ballot initiatives, and civil liberties)

/

   

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

-


Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: msb45 on November 07, 2008, 10:13:59 am
Here is my simple view.  Marriage happens in a Church and is a sacrement under God.

If you get "married" by the state (e.g. court) it is a civil union.  If it's a man and woman, two sames, whatever.  Government allowed benefits remain the same.

We need some regulation in this matter as to regards of age and blood relationship.

For those total Libertarians who say get government totally out I wonder how you feel about the ACLU and the Man-Boy Love types getting civil unions.  Regulation of some limited sort is necessary as our country has lost the continuity of a Judeo-Christain values so there is no "common" in moral sensibilities or standards.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: sqlbullet on November 07, 2008, 10:26:23 am
I can't speak for the other libertarians around, but I can speak for my view of liberty.

Marriage (or civil union) is a contract.  Each state already regulates who can and cannot enter into contracts on the basis of age and mental competence.  I am not sure how a marriage contract should differ.

Further, each state also has rules regarding sex with a minor.  Again, I think these cover pretty well the limitations that are needed.

So, to summarize:  The government has jurisdiction over issues related to direct personal injury or loss of property via direct action or deception.  These issues, as they relate to marriage are or could be currently ensured via existing contract law and criminal law in most, if not all, states.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: JesseL on November 07, 2008, 10:39:27 am
For those total Libertarians who say get government totally out I wonder how you feel about the ACLU and the Man-Boy Love types getting civil unions.  Regulation of some limited sort is necessary as our country has lost the continuity of a Judeo-Christain values so there is no "common" in moral sensibilities or standards.

'Boy' implies someone who isn't yet mature enough to enter into contracts. You might notice that most of the libertarian type folks are in favor consenting adults being allowed to form whatever kind of arrangement they like with each other.

Even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists generally agree that people below some level of maturity are not competent to handle their own affairs and it's wrong to exploit that (or for parents to allow it to be exploited).
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Doug Wojtowicz on November 07, 2008, 11:16:49 am
I wonder how you feel about the ACLU and the Man-Boy Love types getting civil unions.

I have no problem with members of NAMBLA entering civil unions - with 350 pound bikers at the local penitentiary.  There's only one breed of alleged human I advocate rape heartily for, and it's child molesters. 

Bubba and Baby raper, I pronounce you man and wife.  Bubba, you may now tap that @$$.  Just stuff a pillow down his gob so he doesn't wake your neighbors.

Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Brian Dale on November 07, 2008, 12:39:03 pm
Quote from: BruceRDucer
As civil rights exist at law,  law must recognize only those rights established by legal process.

Which country are you writing about? It's not that way in mine. Please review "Amendment IX" in my earlier post.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Khorne on November 07, 2008, 01:00:41 pm
Remember to keep it civil people.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: msb45 on November 07, 2008, 01:05:21 pm
Equating the relationships between consenting adults (gays) and nonconsenting rape as advocated by NAMBLA is the foulest possible thing anyone who can claim to be a human can espouse.

So if you're wondering where that smite point came from, it's from me, bigot.

I'm sorry you feel I was stating an equation.  I separated the thoughts by a sentence and clearly stated I don't care about civil unions.  I was stating a continuum of behavior and thus the need for some level of boundaries to be set.  I don't appreciate the personal attack of being called a bigot.  Nor can I appreciate the lack of rational thought applied to this thread or knee jerk reactions.  In America you used to be able to share thoughts reasonably and disagree without hate or prejudice.  I frankly thought if I were controversial it would be to Libertarians not Gays (who in my Family are outnumbered by Gays).

But in the "new America" I guess we just label people, denounce them, and "smite" them.  
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: BruceRDucer on November 07, 2008, 02:06:38 pm
Quote
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.----cited by Brian Dale


    Brian,  your proposition seems to be that a RIGHT,  not specifically identified at law,   exists outside the context of law.   Since the Bill of Rights   enumerates no right to SAME SEX MARRIAGE,  your remarks are  not substantiated by fact.

    A RIGHT is what is enumerated at law.   There are no other RIGHTS.

/
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Brian Dale on November 07, 2008, 02:19:24 pm
Quote from: BruceRDucer
A RIGHT is what is enumerated at law.   There are no other RIGHTS.

Well, I know where you stand, anyway.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: JesseL on November 07, 2008, 02:20:47 pm
       A RIGHT is what is enumerated at law.   There are no other RIGHTS.

/

Wrong.
A right is anything that is not prohibited by law.

An enumerated right is one with extra barriers to how the government may limit it.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 07, 2008, 03:27:48 pm
Quote
For those total Libertarians who say get government totally out I wonder how you feel about the ACLU and the Man-Boy Love types getting civil unions.  Regulation of some limited sort is necessary as our country has lost the continuity of a Judeo-Christain values so there is no "common" in moral sensibilities or standards.
Disposing of the current system for a minute, I believe that the criterion should be based on full citizenship. The way I'd make it, a child would be a minor citizen and an adult would be a full citizen. All contractual agreements could only be undertaken by full citizens. When/how would a minor become a full citizen? Well, I imagine some sort of qualifications are in order. Throw age out the window, I was ready to vote, etc. when I was 16, and I know some 30-year-olds who still aren't ready. Maybe recommendations or something, I haven't put enough thought into it. All of this should have the same structure but be handled by the state governments.
In this system, there would be no such thing as "man-boy love" because, legally, there would be no such thing as children. Either someone is a full-citizen or someone is not. Pedophilia laws would still apply, but to minors instead of children. Of course, all these laws are to be determined on the state or local level, not the national level.
This system would work optimally with a completely revamped education system, but it's not like our current system couldn't use one of those, either.

Quote
Even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists generally agree that people below some level of maturity are not competent to handle their own affairs and it's wrong to exploit that (or for parents to allow it to be exploited).
The more I think about it, the more Anarcho-Capitalism sounds like a good idea...
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Doug Wojtowicz on November 07, 2008, 03:42:01 pm
MSB45 - I'm sorry for getting so angry that I missed the civil union portion of your post.

Child sexual predation is one of my CAUSES - I'm card carrying Protect Member #004020.  Any semblance of equivocating the rights of adult, consenting humans to the most high unholy scum and hated enemy (NAMBLA) trips a hair trigger in me. 

I'll go back and fix my rage fest.

Accept my apologies.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Brian Dale on November 07, 2008, 05:00:51 pm
Anybody else want to muddy the waters with other hot-button issues? Fishing with dynamite over coral reefs? Sexual slavery and kidnapping? Armed robbery? Alien Zombie Bears?

Like those other red-herring issues, the issue of predation on children by evil scum has nothing to do with government involvement in which adults may marry each other.

Let's all please stick to the topic of this thread. Thanks.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 07, 2008, 05:07:01 pm
Quote
Like those other red-herring issues, the issue of predation on children by evil scum has nothing to do with government involvement in which adults may marry each other.
And, honestly, I'd be shocked if anyone really disagreed on the issue.
 ;)
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 07, 2008, 05:38:04 pm
Wrong.
A right is anything that is not prohibited by law.

Wrong again.  By that logic, you have a right to a supermodel harem, big screen plasma TV, and free medical care -- since none of those things are prohibited by law.  Of course, you have a right to pursue these things.  But you don't have a right to invariably have them.  Similarly, your rights are then subject to the whims of the legislature.  Who's law deems whether you have a right to high capacity magazines?  Obviously, hi cap mags is not a "right" in New Jersey, by your statement.  And yet, those mags ARE a right in Utah... ?

Really, there is only one right: The right to live your life and to do so in a manner that pleases you while respecting this same right in others.  This is summarized in a single word: Liberty.  Liberty has two parts: Your life must be unthreatened by unnatural forces and your ability to do whatever you want with your life must be similarly unimpaired.

All the other rights we cherish extend from that one core right.  Your right to armament protects your life and your ability to live it.  Your right to free speech, the due process of law, a trial by a jury of your peers, and so forth -- these all extend from one right: The right to life/liberty.

Just law exists to protect your right from all other entities, be they meth-heads on the streets or bureaucrats in the capitol.  Unjust law ignores your rights and seeks superfluous and unattainable things like perfect safety or a good public image.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Skeptic49 on November 07, 2008, 05:41:05 pm
     A RIGHT is what is enumerated at law.   There are no other RIGHTS.

I would call that absolutely backwards.  The "Bill of Rights" puts restrictions on GOVERNMENT, it does not "Grant" rights.

Geoff
Who notes marriage has been defined by the voters in Florida and California.  Neither of whose electorates, I suspect, looks fondly at "rights" created by a judges declaration.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Fred Garvin on November 07, 2008, 10:32:29 pm
Why is this an issue? Same-sex couples have no bearing or influence on my family. If 2 men or 2 women want to make a legal, binding commitment to each other, why should I care?   ???
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: msb45 on November 08, 2008, 12:06:42 am
Doug I appreciate your thoughts and you actions as a gentleman, we're cool.  I also appreciate your zeal on your cause as I have a definite opinion on that issue.

I think the main point I'm making is that the law is not static.  It is changed by society's acceptance or rejection of something.  Rights are a given.  I agree with the concept of enumerated rights.  We need to carefully balance the need for regulation with liberty.

The example may have been offensive, my apologies , as it was to show the end of a continuum.  But ask yourself as a gun owner this question.  Have I been lumped in with people with mental issues, people with bloodlust, or an owner of something whose only "purpose is to kill another human"?  Aren't these characterizations far fetched?  What public outcry will result and pressure to legislate your rights away via a prohibition as these ideas take hold?  Can anyone here really answer the first question with a no?

If the election of Obama has taught us anything it is the value of perception. Forget the laws on the books.  A couple of legislative moves, a few Supreme Court nominees, and some taxes on ammo and it's over.  We have to stand as a unified commmunity and vote on this one issue and lobby the government.  We need to present ourselves in a manner that separates us from whom the public despises through education and example.  We need their support.  If we're not perceived as a threat the public will be more willing to oppose restrictions on us.  And in the upcoming fight we need every ally we can get.

Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: THE NORSEMAN on November 08, 2008, 12:12:46 am
This is a tough issue.  While my personal beliefs are that there are certain laws of God that are not open to interpretation by man, I do see how others with different views or belief systems could see limiting same sex marriage recognition as discriminatory. 

Thanks to all WTA members that have posted so far.  Some of you have raised points I honestly hadn't considered.  And while the discussion here has gotten "heated" at times, I think we have managed to remain civil with each other.  That deserves high praise.

Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: MadMatt on November 12, 2008, 10:46:53 pm
Hi, I'm Matt... enough of introductions.

Here is what bothers me about the Mormon involvement in Prop 8.

Many years ago the Mormons had a practice of marriage that was very strange to the rest of the society.  Polygamy was practiced and people perished for their beliefs.  The Mormons were hounded for years, moved 1000's of miles from Missouri to Salt Lake City, buried their loved ones along the way, and ultimately gave up their beliefs to gain statehood from a government that didn't accept them.

And now 160 years later, they are advocating that the government do exactly the same thing to another group of people that just want to live their lives as they see fit.

Does that bother anyone else?
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 12, 2008, 10:55:55 pm
Quote
And now 160 years later, they are advocating that the government do exactly the same thing to another group of people that just want to live their lives as they see fit.

Does that bother anyone else?
Sure it does.
I'm bothered by it, but I am also bothered by many other practices/history of almost all of the other major religions, so, I mean, they really aren't special.
Plus, I don't want to bring that up in a debate about law, someone might get the idea that I feel the government ought to do something about it.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Skunk Ape on November 12, 2008, 11:02:43 pm
Plus, I don't want to bring that up in a debate about law, someone might get the idea that I feel the government ought to do something about it.

Ah, but here we have some of the few explicit duties of the gubmint, namely the enforcement of contracts and equal protection under the law.  The irony is that the government SHOULD do something about it, but refuses to due to political pressure from both the Left and the Right.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Nolo on November 12, 2008, 11:06:37 pm
Quote
Ah, but here we have some of the few explicit duties of the gubmint, namely the enforcement of contracts and equal protection under the law.  The irony is that the government SHOULD do something about it, but refuses to due to political pressure from both the Left and the Right.
Well, I meant within their own church. Laws can be declared unconstitutional, and any law like that should be.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: GeorgeHill on November 13, 2008, 02:30:26 am
Hi, I'm Matt... enough of introductions.

Here is what bothers me about the Mormon involvement in Prop 8.



Dude, don't even blame Utah Mormons for the voter response on Prop 8.   They didn't vote on it.   Or are California Voters all the sudden really big on what Utah thinks?
And why did you single out Mormons?   Catholics and other Christian churches donated money for advertising too.  Or didn't you know that?  Or is it just a Mormon thing?
Be honest.
BTW, Welcome to a Mormon Run Board.   Not to make you uncomfortable, I just want to know what you think.   Because I didn't donate money to this.   I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against regardless of what Vice they choose.  You could be into Avocados for all I care.  As long as it isn't a child and its consensual,  I don't care.  I've very Libertarian that way.    I would be just as concerned if you said "The Catholic involvement".   
Quote
and ultimately gave up their beliefs to gain statehood from a government that didn't accept them.
And that isnt exactly right either.... but that's another topic for another day...
 
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Khorne on November 13, 2008, 10:15:51 am
It's amazing that those that preach "tolerance" the most are usually most intolerant of other people's ideas.  A case in point...

http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html (http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html)
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 13, 2008, 11:24:54 am
Dude, don't even blame Utah Mormons for the voter response on Prop 8.  They didn't vote on it.  Or are California Voters all the sudden really big on what Utah thinks?
And why did you single out Mormons?  Catholics and other Christian churches donated money for advertising too. Or didn't you know that? Or is it just a Mormon thing?
Be honest.

Latter-Day Saints make the easiest target because we're easiest to distinguish in a crowd. We're the best-organized religion you're likely to run into just about anywhere and we make no secret out of our beliefs.

The facts of the matter -- as well as the true issue -- are hidden in the feelings of hurt and rage that're likely to come from a majority ruling against something so important to people. But rather than address the principle flaws in democracy -- which many are indoctrinated to adore -- they would rather just blame a church. Makes a great scapegoat.

It's amazing that those that preach "tolerance" the most are usually most intolerant of other people's ideas. A case in point...

http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html (http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html)

I don't like the term "tolerance." It's usually used the wrong way. When many say that they want "tolerance" they actually mean that they want your endorsement.

That's why, instead, I choose the word respect: I ain't gonna tell ya how to live your life and kindly ask you return the favor. If you want me to tell you it's okay, that I think you're justified, or whatever else, you can go to hell. But I'm not going to hurt you and I'll do my best to judge you fairly.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Mrs. Armoredman on November 13, 2008, 12:04:58 pm
Hi, I'm Matt... enough of introductions.

Here is what bothers me about the Mormon involvement in Prop 8.

Many years ago the Mormons had a practice of marriage that was very strange to the rest of the society.  Polygamy was practiced and people perished for their beliefs.  The Mormons were hounded for years, moved 1000's of miles from Missouri to Salt Lake City, buried their loved ones along the way, and ultimately gave up their beliefs to gain statehood from a government that didn't accept them.






 So what. Don't blame the Utah Mormorns. You seem to bring religon into this discussion and shoot fire at one religon. I am not mormorn but I hate it when someone shoots fire at one religon. I am a Wisconson Synod Luthern and I am a Hetrosexual one man woman. I think sir you are out of line attacking people like that. I get even more upset when folks drag marriage through the mud like it's evil. It's not. I don't believe that 2 men and 2 women should be married it's not right. It's sicking. I'm sorry if I ticked anyone off but that is how I feel.

Geroge Hill, I like your board and I like posting here. I have no issue what religon you are. You are a nice man and I am grateful that I was able to find this board. You have never thrown your religon in anyones face or made them convert. I feel that this person was out of line attacking someones beliefs like that. I have beenb married for almost 11 years and I enjoy it being with the man I love. Again thank you for allowing me to post on your awesome board.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: StevenTing on November 13, 2008, 12:19:25 pm

 So what. Don't blame the Utah Mormorns. You seem to bring religon into this discussion and shoot fire at one religon. I am not mormorn but I hate it when someone shoots fire at one religon. I am a Wisconson Synod Luthern and I am a Hetrosexual one man woman. I think sir you are out of line attacking people like that. I get even more upset when folks drag marriage through the mud like it's evil. It's not. I don't believe that 2 men and 2 women should be married it's not right. It's sicking. I'm sorry if I ticked anyone off but that is how I feel.

Geroge Hill, I like your board and I like posting here. I have no issue what religon you are. You are a nice man and I am grateful that I was able to find this board. You have never thrown your religon in anyones face or made them convert. I feel that this person was out of line attacking someones beliefs like that. I have beenb married for almost 11 years and I enjoy it being with the man I love. Again thank you for allowing me to post on your awesome board.

I know Matt.  He's not attacking anyone's religion.  He's just providing an opposite view.  While I don't necessarily agree with the statement 100%, I think there may be some validity to it.  I don't like the idea of gay marriage but it will probably happen in the future.

A high school friend of mine wrote the following:
Quote
In the early 1900's, in the United States, the majority of people felt that interracial relations were a deviant behavior which people were killed for. It took time for people to accept interracial relationships as equal to same race relationships, and I do believe that someday homosexual relationships will gain the same level of acceptance. Homosexuality may seem deviant to you today as it does to many people, but that feeling usually goes away when you spend time with a committed homosexual couple.

But, if you follow the case of the Mormons, when their beliefs were not accepted or they were persecuted, they moved to a new place.  Maybe it's time for the LGBT crowd to move to a state where it's already accepted, like Massachusetts.  They can form their own state and their own society where everyone will except them.  I just know it's not likely to happen in Utah.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: StevenTing on November 13, 2008, 12:20:33 pm


I don't like the term "tolerance." It's usually used the wrong way. When many say that they want "tolerance" they actually mean that they want your endorsement.

That's why, instead, I choose the word respect: I ain't gonna tell ya how to live your life and kindly ask you return the favor. If you want me to tell you it's okay, that I think you're justified, or whatever else, you can go to hell. But I'm not going to hurt you and I'll do my best to judge you fairly.

Good Call.  I'll start using the word Respect instead of Tolerance.  It makes much more sense.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: MadMatt on November 13, 2008, 12:38:02 pm
What a fun board!

A couple of things to point out.  I didn't attack anyone nor did I attack anyones religion.  I pointed out something that I thought was hypocritical and I have been taken to task on it.  I can appreciate that.  I didn't tell anyone to stop being mormon, nor did I say I think people are dumb or ignorant if they are.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  If you are LDS, then be the best LDS member that you can be.  We can be critical all day long when it comes to the hypocracy in government but religion seems to really get people going.

To Georges point, the reason I posted about the Mormon church is that at one time they had a government extermination order issued against them and people were told to shoot on sight, all because of a belief that they held to be true but others didn't understand.  I don't know of any other Protestant American religion that has such an order but I could be wrong.

I will also correct my statement about giving up a belief.  Mormons stopped practicing polygamy in order to achieve statehood.

I also know that this is a Mormon run board.  I don't think that has any bearing on this.

Utah Mormons vs. California Mormons?  I didn't know there was a difference.  Didn't the mormon church encourage members everywhere to donate to the cause?

If the moderators tell me that religion is off limits as a subject to talk about, I will respect that and I won't bring it up again.

Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Brian Dale on November 13, 2008, 01:40:36 pm
Quote from: Khorne
It's amazing that those that preach "tolerance" the most are usually most intolerant of other people's ideas.

They seem to have tolerated Mr. Eckern's ideas just fine for some 25 years. However, when the voters of California decided to get up and deny to gays and lesbians an important institution that other citizens accept and insist on for themselves, he acted. He donated $1,000 in support of the campaign to deny legal marriage to gays and lesbians. When people found out, they raised a stink about it.

The figure of $1,000 brings to mind the tale of a gentleman named Dan Cooper. You might all remember what happened when he was discovered to have donated the same amount, $1,000, to the Obama campaign. The gun boards didn't go quite berserk, but there were lots of shrieking harpies--or Furies, perhaps--raising quite a stink about it for the day or two until Mr. Cooper "fell or was pushed" from his job as CEO of the company that bears his name.

Some people in Sacramento fought from the soap box against Mr. Ekern's support of Prop 8, just as many of us fought from the soap box against Dan Cooper's support of the Obama campaign. I don't see any hypocrisy in either action.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Mrs. Armoredman on November 13, 2008, 04:03:06 pm
  Then they should practice what they preach. Ok your not attacking any religon. What are you attacking?
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Khorne on November 13, 2008, 04:24:40 pm
Friendly reminder for everyone to keep it civil.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: ridata on November 13, 2008, 04:45:14 pm
Brian Dale: That's funny. I read through the article and made the exact same connection with Dan Cooper. There is some difference in that Mr. Cooper's beliefs and donations went against everything his company (presumably) stood for. I don't quite see how Mr. Ekern's donation was against what his company stood for - they could hire different actors to replace the gay ones that quit over his support of Prop 8.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: macadore on November 13, 2008, 06:27:43 pm
IMO, the issue is money. If a married spouse dies, the survivor can draw the deceased's social security and other retirement benefits. If we allow gay marriage, the costs both of these will go up. There are other financial advantages to being married. If I were gay, this type of discrimination would infuriate me. It does not seem fair or equitable.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 14, 2008, 12:31:42 am
IMO, the issue is money. If a married spouse dies, the survivor can draw the deceased's social security and other retirement benefits.

Well, considering the whole Social Security system is inequitable in the first place, I'm not sure how that's applicable.  Social Security is a fraud.  It's a contract that you are forced into against your will and you have no option of escaping and the government is free to change the terms of your social security without your consent at any time in a manner that pleases it. In the real world, we call those kinds of contracts "unconscionable."

So by the time you get around to talking benefits for surviving widow(er)s and the genders of said window(er)s, you're so far down the line of inequitable attributes of the social security program that I really have to wonder where your priorities are.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Brian Dale on November 14, 2008, 12:46:59 am
Ishpeck, I love ya like, well, like an Ishpeck, but the insolvency of Social Security is a red herring here.   :)
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 14, 2008, 01:37:08 am
Ishpeck, I love ya like, well, like an Ishpeck, but the insolvency of Social Security is a red herring here.   :)

Insolvency aside, there is so much about it that's just plain wrong that whenever people try to use it as an argument in anything, I have to just laugh. 

Demanding equity where social security is involved is laughable at best.

Now, see, a real insurance plan or a real retirement fund would let you name any random person you want as the beneficiary.  Who you're married to is subordinate to what you want.  Under a fair contract where you actually have a say in its terms, you could declare your secret gay lover, or your trophy wife, or your dog as the beneficiary of your death and it won't matter.

So the whole issue of SS and other similar inheritance concerns is also a red herring when considering marriage.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: macadore on November 14, 2008, 06:21:07 am
Well, considering the whole Social Security system is inequitable in the first place, I'm not sure how that's applicable.  Social Security is a fraud.  It's a contract that you are forced into against your will and you have no option of escaping and the government is free to change the terms of your social security without your consent at any time in a manner that pleases it. In the real world, we call those kinds of contracts "unconscionable."

So it the Interstate Highway system, the airports, most mass transportation, and the police. Everyone pays for them. But not everyone uses them. Are these unconscionable? It depends on whose ox is being gored.

So by the time you get around to talking benefits for surviving widow(er)s and the genders of said window(er)s, you're so far down the line of inequitable attributes of the social security program that I really have to wonder where your priorities are.

I make a simple statement of economic fact and you respond with a personal attack? That's an illogical argument. My priorities may be skewed, but that has nothing to do with the argument. The fact remains that while everyone pays into the system, many marriage benefits of the system available to straight people are denied to gay people. That's inequitable, and it is the same argument that you're making against Social Security.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Molson on November 14, 2008, 09:57:05 am
Quote from: macadore
So it the Interstate Highway system, the airports, most mass transportation, and the police. Everyone pays for them. But not everyone uses them. Are these unconscionable?

Save the Highway system, (and a good argument can be made for police as well) yes; they are unconscionable. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong; just because a wrong is committed in one circumstance doesn't justify it in another.

I think the main point about Social Security is that it is, by its nature, an inequitable system. This is evidenced by the fact that I and others around my age, have very little chance of seeing a dime from Social Security when we get older, but we still will be putting in for most our lives. That's not mentioning that I and most others will most likely never draw from SS for a disability, or any other reason that one can draw early, as others do. So claiming that one group doesn't have equitable access to a system built around inequitable access is not a valid argument.

Your argument also assumes that gay marriage is a valid reason to claim equitable access, which I don't believe has been established yet; therefore, it cannot be claimed that they have unequal access anyway. I would argue that they have equal access to SS, just as they have equal marriage "rights" currently. If I want to marry a woman, I can. If I want to marry a man, I can't. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, he can. If he wants to marry a man, he can't. We both are held to the same standard. That's one thing that has always bothered me about the gay marriage argument; they claim they are fighting for equal rights, but they are really fighting for special rights, or at least different rights. Whether it is a right that is justified or not is something that I haven't decided yet.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: JesseL on November 14, 2008, 10:27:48 am
Your argument also assumes that gay marriage is a valid reason to claim equitable access, which I don't believe has been established yet; therefore, it cannot be claimed that they have unequal access anyway. I would argue that they have equal access to SS, just as they have equal marriage "rights" currently. If I want to marry a woman, I can. If I want to marry a man, I can't. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, he can. If he wants to marry a man, he can't. We both are held to the same standard. That's one thing that has always bothered me about the gay marriage argument; they claim they are fighting for equal rights, but they are really fighting for special rights, or at least different rights. Whether it is a right that is justified or not is something that I haven't decided yet.

That line of reasoning always struck me as a little disingenuous. You could easily apply it to miscegenation or other kinds of segregation as well.

The easy counter to your argument  is:

If you want to marry the person you love and intend to spend your life with, you can.
If a gay person wants to marry the person they love and intends to spend the rest of their life with, they can't.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Molson on November 14, 2008, 10:38:52 am
Quote from: JesseL
That line of reasoning always struck me as a little disingenuous. You could easily apply it to miscegenation or other kinds of segregation as well.

I actually agree with you, which is why I made the argument.

The 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

the 9th and the 10th are, imo, the most ignored amendments in the Constitution. The 9th essentially states that while the most prominent, or important, rights are listed in the Bill of Rights, there are others that are not listed that are just as valid as those that are listed. So, yes, I would say that if my argument was made in a discussion on segregation it would be just as valid. Notice I didn't claim that they don't actually have or deserve these special/different rights, just that they are special/different. Currently there is equal access to the institution of marriage which is defined as being between a man and a woman. What they are asking for is a redefinition of marriage, to include those of the same sex, which is not the same as asking for equal rights (and consequently one of the biggest reasons I lean toward being "anti" gay marriage). 
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 14, 2008, 10:42:12 am
So it the Interstate Highway system, the airports, most mass transportation, and the police. Everyone pays for them. But not everyone uses them. Are these unconscionable? It depends on whose ox is being gored.

Whether it's unconscionable doesn't depend on who is wronged by it.  A contract is either unjust or it is not.  Justice is either served or it is not.  But picking and choosing which indentured services are justifiable and which aren't is far too arbitrary to be considered acceptable among civilized people.

Regarding freeways: Even if you never drive on one, your food is likely delivered to you by them.  Same with many air ports.  Those things could be argued to be of personal benefit to the citizens who are compelled to pay for them.  That doesn't mean I think they are justified.  It just gives us some direction as to whether or not that mode of government can be debated over amongst rational people.
 
I make a simple statement of economic fact and you respond with a personal attack?

I had no intentions on making it into a personal attack.  I'm sorry that it came across that way.  I was merely trying to put things into perspective:  Everyone, not just gays, is getting screwed where Social Security is involved.  So it's silly to suppose that gays are singled out as the soul victims where Social Security is involved.

The fact remains that while everyone pays into the system, many marriage benefits of the system available to straight people are denied to gay people. That's inequitable, and it is the same argument that you're making against Social Security.

See, the problem here is not whether or not marriage "benefits" are granted to one kind of union or another.  The problem is that the government is reserving to itself the right to pick and choose who they will give benefits to after everyone was compelled to pay for those services.  It doesn't matter if it's a denial of services to gay couples, polygamist ... groupies?, or one of those technophilia human-android couples or no kind of couple at all (like wanting your benefits to default to your brother-in-law who became a really close friend).  In the end, the government reserves the right to dictate the terms of the agreement to you and you are forever at its mercy -- straight or otherwise.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Molson on November 14, 2008, 10:54:19 am
I have a hard time with the gay marriage debate. Personally I believe that anyone should be able to marry anyone, or anything for that matter. If you love your toaster passionately enough and want to share the rest of your life with it, and you can find someone to perform the ceremony, go for it. The problem arises when there is a forced acceptance. Sure, you can marry your toaster, but don't expect me to recognize it as a marriage. Optimally, I don't want the government involved in the issue of marriage one way or the other, as their involvement forces social acceptance. Basically, we should either have no income tax or a flat tax; no deductions, no special exemptions, nothing. Unfortunately that is not the case and has an infinitesimally small chance of ever being the case, which leads me to my dilemma: How do I stay true to my opinion when the current situation forces a contradiction?
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: springmom on November 14, 2008, 11:00:18 am
Ishpeck, we ARE the government.  If enough people in this country want changes in the social security system to allow beneficiary naming in the same way as regular insurance policies, it will get done.  What you're missing is that there are NOT enough people who want to see this change.  

Social Security reform is a perennial topic in this country.  Comes up in every congressional session, is yapped about by every candidate for everything above city council.  But relatively little change occurs.  Certainly there is no indication that even reformers have considered the changes you're suggesting.  Why?  Because they know perfectly well that the majority of the American people would oppose it.  And they'd like to keep their jobs.

This country is pretty good, on the whole, doing "live and let live".  But they're not likely to expand Social Security benefits to beneficiaries other than spouses, because the original intent of the thing was to ensure that if Granddad dies, Grandma still has enough money to buy (barely) the basics to keep body and soul together.  It is not intended to be an insurance policy with a guaranteed payout at death; so it's not structured that way.  

Jan
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Ishpeck on November 14, 2008, 11:02:38 am
How do I stay true to my opinion when the current situation forces a contradiction?

You don't.  This is why so many people tell you that straight marriages are so integral to society.  Because if you were really to correct all the great big flaws implicit in our government(s), many people who subsist on extortiontax money will have to actually work for a living. OH THE HUMANITIES!

But it's important -- and I would really like it if our gay patriots would get on board with this idea -- to correct the ever-meddling tendencies of government so that we don't have to have insane amounts of conflict over every issue that hits the ballots.  If government were less involved with peoples' lives, there would be less emotional attachment to any one issue... so the things that do get voted in your non-preferred way still don't botch-up everything you hold dear.

Ishpeck, we ARE the government.

Sort of.

If enough people in this country want changes in the social security system to allow beneficiary naming in the same way as regular insurance policies, it will get done.
 

This is part of my gripe with it:  "If enough people" want something, sure it can happen.  Except the bailouts are proof positive that even then, the majority opinion can't sway Congress from screwing with us.

And it shouldn't require a huge movement with millions of people marching their indignant march of civil reform.  If it's wrong, it's wrong and it doesn't matter whether it's one million or just three or four people who are being victimized by it.

What you're missing is that there are NOT enough people who want to see this change.
 

Yeah, I know.  "Liberty and justice for all" is more of a slogan than a real explanation of how things are.

Social Security reform is a perennial topic in this country.  Comes up in every congressional session, is yapped about by every candidate for everything above city council.  But relatively little change occurs.

Because there's a conflict of interests.  Congress now gets to pay itself outta Social Security funds.  S'like locking the fox in your hen house and expecting it to protect them with its cunning and instincts.

Certainly there is no indication that even reformers have considered the changes you're suggesting.  Why?  Because they know perfectly well that the majority of the American people would oppose it.  And they'd like to keep their jobs.

And that, too.

This country is pretty good, on the whole, doing "live and let live".

Agreed.

But they're not likely to expand Social Security benefits to beneficiaries other than spouses, because the original intent of the thing was to ensure that if Granddad dies, Grandma still has enough money to buy (barely) the basics to keep body and soul together.  It is not intended to be an insurance policy with a guaranteed payout at death; so it's not structured that way.

People used to call it "SSI."  The "I" stood for "insurance."  Of course, it was a misnomer, but that's how it was sold to the public at the time.  Lots of deception, to trick people into cooperation just long enough to make it an inescapable precedent. 

A lot of people don't even understand what Social Security is or how it works.  And I believe that if they really knew, there'd be a lot more resistance to the modus operandi.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Swarthytart on November 14, 2008, 12:00:34 pm
Face it, Ishy.  Springmom just schooled you.
Title: Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
Post by: Thernlund on November 14, 2008, 12:07:27 pm
All right kids.  We're done here I think.


-T.