I thought I'd reopen the debate on the gay marriage in San Fransico thing. I found out some stuff a while back and I forgot to post it earlier, so I'm sorry if this is old news.

Anyway, in 2000 a proposition was placed before all the Californian citizens and it was whither to keep marriage between a man and a woman or not. 2/3 of the population voted to keep it between a man and a woman and San Fransico was the only city to vote to allow gay marraige. There is also a law in California that says to the effect that if a public official(senator, governor, etc) uses his/her power to violate a law, that it is a felony.

Now, since it appears that the mayor violated both the law and the will of the super-majority(2/3 or 3/4 vote), does anyone change their views about the San Fransciso events?

I do. I am now completely against it on legal grounds.

------------------
Checksum: I thought about it, I guess I'm striving for my own personal ideals. I'll just project those ideals onto Jesus and say "I'm trying to be like Jesus" so that I won't have to listen to you banter endlessly about me worshipping a false god or some such.

The Last True Evil: Ironically, that's very Christian of you.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited February 22, 2004).]

I have no problem with gay civil unions with the same rights as marriage. What I do have a problem with is the corruption of our language. The word "marriage" means "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." They should not be allowed to redefine words as they see fit. They already ruined the word "gay" and somehow associated nice symbols like rainbows and certain orientations of triangles to mean "homosexual" - stuff like this should not be associated with anything sexual, they should just retain their original meanings. If there is something that exists in our world that doesn't have a word already associated with it, make up a new word! As soon as you start reusing words to mean more than one thing, the language gets more confusing, more ambiguous. Pick a different word, damnit!

I'm all for breaking laws if I see them as immoral to begin with.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

The issue here isn't that he broke an immoral law or whatever, it's that he directly went against as Kieran said the great majority and committed a felony apparently.

The entire point of having elected officials is to represent the people. Now i realise that majority rule isn't really perfect or whatever, but when you get officials who blatantly go against public will and law.. that could be an issue. [and please don't use this as an excuse say omq liek george bush lookz0rz liek teh m3nk3y..]

Brian makes a very good point. And as i'm sure i've posted at least a few times before, just subsidise benefits breaks bonusses whatever to a broader portion of the populace [cuz it's not like there's not already a huge number of straight couples who get married just for those, who otherwise wouldn't ever bother to], particularly things like kin-status to be able to visit in the hospital and such, and i don't think this would be nearly the same issue.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Just because it's law doesn't mean it's right.

That would be the Nazis you'd be wanting to blame, then...?

I'm in favor of giving them the same status as married people currently are, but I also see it as a matter of segregation (Earl Warren's remarks regarding the Brown vs. BOE are appropriate in this case; separate but equal is *not* equal). Considering marriage is used in the legal sense, it should be that the term applies to homosexual couples who seek the same legal protection, as well.

I've heard how permitting gay marriage would threaten "traditional" families countless times, yet I've never heard a justification for that view. I *have* heard that marriage is meant to allow for families to be raised, but by that logic, shouldn't infertile couples be denied marriage licenses, since they can't produce children?

On that note, it should be pointed out that homosexuals are not sterile.


-Fox

I am for gay marriage, but what this mayor did was wrong. If we can't even expect our elected officials to up hold and abide by the law, what kind of role model does that leave us with?

Some would classify it as civil disobediance(sp?). Well, okay. One of the things that goes with civil disobediance is jail time. You have to take the bad with the good.

------------------
Checksum: I thought about it, I guess I'm striving for my own personal ideals. I'll just project those ideals onto Jesus and say "I'm trying to be like Jesus" so that I won't have to listen to you banter endlessly about me worshipping a false god or some such.

The Last True Evil: Ironically, that's very Christian of you.

Alright.. if 3000 people sign up for it within hours, it obviously means people want this to happen. And so far, God isnt smiting anyone, so I guess its OK

------------------
Happy "Diseased" dud: You said I'd be like this guy. Boycotting everything..
Happy "Diseased" dud: ted kazcnisky. That's who it was.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wait, That's the unibomer.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wrong guy.

*gets smitted*

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

Marriage as defined in the Bible has no place in our laws.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

I know, its just alot of the people that are against gay marriage (Or unions, or anything) say that it shouldnt be allowed because it's against the bible

------------------
Happy "Diseased" dud: You said I'd be like this guy. Boycotting everything..
Happy "Diseased" dud: ted kazcnisky. That's who it was.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wait, That's the unibomer.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wrong guy.

I'm for gay marriage (or civil union, for those of you who say it demoralizes the term of "marriage"). It's very similar to what happened in the past with interracial marriage. That was seen as wrong for many years. Homosexuals should have the right to enter into unions like any heterosexual might, and then be seen as an actual union by the government. How would you like it if something were to happen to a loved one of yours, and you could do nothing because you were not seen as family. This is what many homosexuals face. It is as if the government and the people of this country would prefer to wipe homosexuals from the face of this world.

If America is stated as a free country, homesexual people should be able to marry each other. That is freedom.

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
-----@%

Show me anywhere where it says you have the right to marry, the privilege to be married.. that's right, it's simply not covered. It is referenced often, but there isn't in fact any protection or guarantee of that even for straight couples.

Simply apply the same benefits to civil unions or whatever as common-law marriage or something.. i doubt you'd get nearly as much flak from the conservatives or whatever [not to say all conservatives are against it, or all the ones who are against it are conservatives].

So long as you have the legal backing [ie kin-status as stated previously] and such, whatever, who is the government to be able to decide upon my paying them a fee, who i am or am not related to. Adopting a child legally doesn't make a damn bit of difference to how much one loves or cares for them, or make that child's genes somehow the same as yours.

I personally just kinda collect kin as i go through life, various sisters, several sets of parent as it were, that sorta thing.. when i introduce someone as being my sister or whatever, nobody's going to look up the social security database to check or wherever one would find that information. Though admittedly it wouldn't work as well with hospital visits or whatever. But still. The whole legal backing of the family unit is just a very formalised and corporate method of increasing the commodification of people.

Not to say marriage is not a good thing or to be cherished or whatever, but i mean when you've got a 50+% divorce rate and serial monogamy is the norm, it's not precisely seeming to be a societally/culturally upheld sacred bond, more a sort of guideline, to be ended whenever the next thing comes along.
I was writing summat on this topic a while ago, so i'll include it here:


For something that so many people are so very opinionated and such about, maybe we should damn well start taking it seriously ourselves before we start hollering about how sacred it is, or the chimeric 'traditional family'.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

But the overwhelming majority does NOT want it to happen. That's the entire point.

What's the difference between marriage and civil union aside from name?

------------------
Checksum: I thought about it, I guess I'm striving for my own personal ideals. I'll just project those ideals onto Jesus and say "I'm trying to be like Jesus" so that I won't have to listen to you banter endlessly about me worshipping a false god or some such.

The Last True Evil: Ironically, that's very Christian of you.