What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
513 Comments
- bixby1, on 11/16/2008, -32/+156I'm a Californian and this protest will only grow in resolve until gays have equal rights. My roommate is gay, in love, and I've never seen him so helpless as he was when we saw the results on 8 come in.
- Wilarseny, on 11/16/2008, -10/+65As much as I support gay marriage rights, Prop 8's passage is much less significant than Arkansas Act 1. My mom manages the foster care program for my home state, and from her perspective the situation is dire not only in our state or even in Arkansas but around the country. Things like Act 1 only serve to exacerbate this tragic problem. And yet you don't see that being protested; adoption rights aren't quite the poster issue that marriage is, for whatever reason. It really drives me up a wall sometimes...
- manzplan, on 11/16/2008, -54/+99I am in Canada, and I was greatly disappointed in the people of California - I thought they were a lot more intelligent than to fall for the fear/hate mongering caused by the Church.
- HyperionHK, on 11/16/2008, -9/+53I just don't understand what people have against ay marriage. It doesn't affect YOU in ANY way. Gay people getting married doesn't have ANY effect on straight marriage at all!
Also, I'm a Canadian, we've had legal gay marriages for a few years now, and NOTHING has changed because of it... - eir574, on 11/16/2008, -13/+57"They just don't have the right to force millions of people to accept their lifestyle choice by redefining the institution of marriage."
I wasn't aware that the having the government grant marriage licenses to homosexuals means that you would be forced to approve of those marriages. Do you approve of every single heterosexual marriage that takes place? Were you forced to accept Britney Spears' lifestyle choice when she got married on a whim and then had it annulled a couple days later? Are those Christians who don't believe that one should be allowed to remarry after getting divorced forced to change their minds given that the government doesn't enforce their point of view? - nlucasltd, on 11/16/2008, -22/+61Let's end Proposition Hate.
- Volkriot, on 11/16/2008, -18/+53I was in Oakland today (across the bay bridge from San Fran) and there were people with signs and cars going by honking in appreciation. It is great to see so many people mobilized to make real change. It makes me proud to be a first generation American when I see such energy devoted to social movement and a unified voice asserting, without apology, that we are all brothers and sisters, and that to take away the rights of the few is to threaten the rights of us all.
Truly inspiring. - lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -12/+46Yes, but not when it comes to civil rights. We have a government set up to protect the rights of all. So no matter if we would have voted for slavery to pass, or inter-racial marriage to be banned, the losing side has a partner in government who makes sure everyone has equal rights. When it comes around to this, as in sooner or later, is the only thing left to question.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -13/+43Yeah. Only 52% can bully homosexuals into submission, saying they're the only ones who get special rights.
Damn them for being upset at inequality. Damn the blacks, damn the women, damn the gays.
/sarcasm
Gays don't have equal rights. Or, only in the sense that everyone had equal rights before inter-racial marriages were legal. - twystoffate, on 11/16/2008, -6/+361st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Your religion can't be used as an excuse to ban LGBT rights.
- eir574, on 11/16/2008, -2/+30"And there is NOTHING in those consitutions about all people having the right to marry anyone in any way."
No, but once a law is passed, all people must have equal protection under the law. You can't pass a law that says everyone other than people with pierced ears can get married, or that everyone other than Christians can get married, or that everyone other than people who own their own homes can get married, or that everyone other than construction workers can get married.
To take another example, receiving unemployment benefits is not a civil right. But, once the government passes a law that provides it, it can't say, "By the way, only heterosexuals can get unemployment benefits."
"Also, marriage is and always been defined as the union between a man and a woman, nothing else."
I don't think you're correct that no culture in the history of the world has ever recognized same sex marriages, but let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. So what? Is the fact that we've been doing something a certain way for a long time sufficient justification for continuing to do it the same way?
"If homosexuals want to "marry", then they'll have to invent a new word. THAT is what Proposition 8 really was all about."
So, then, would you support having the government get out of the business of marriage entirely? Would you accept having the government preside over civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples? - rhustang, on 11/16/2008, -6/+32The rally in Seattle was pretty incredible. The estimate was 5000 people, but I'd say it was closer to 10000. Was a very peaceful rally, marching from Capitol Hill (the "gay district") to downtown. There were a few people with signs downtown saying everyone was going to hell, but it didn't turn into anything.
Really, I don't care about marriage, whether it's straight, gay, bovine, whatever. This is a civil rights issue. If a straight person is allowed to eat carrots, but a gay person isn't, I have a problem with that, even though carrots kinda suck. - eir574, on 11/16/2008, -11/+37"Not to be a party pooper, but doesn't democracy mean you sometimes have to accept the opinion of the majority?"
If the majority of people decided that Christians couldn't get married, would you shrug your shoulders and move on with your life? Or, if you're not a Christian, just substitute another example.
"If older people really were the force behind the pro-Prop 8 vote, then time is on the side of the naysayers."
I suspect this is the case, but I also understand that people who are being denied equal access to the rights associated with marriage might not be too happy waiting. If my husband and I had been denied a marriage license primarily because of someone else's religion, we probably wouldn't have been too happy. - Infinitex2, on 11/16/2008, -5/+31That's what protest is for. That is what I hope this country will become: a nation where the government is afraid of their people, not vice versa. And my heart goes out to your roommate T_T
- Pake, on 11/16/2008, -10/+35Equal rights? You should do some research into adoption and medical care, etc. before you call what gay couples have anything close to "equal."
- sfhock, on 11/16/2008, -2/+25http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/t ...
The Scandinavian studies to which the article presumably refers are the work of right-wing author Stanley Kurtz, who attempted to prove that same-sex marriage decreased the rate of heterosexual marriage in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. This work has been discredited:
In countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized--Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain--the rate of heterosexual marriage stability has either gone up, remained stable, or declined consistent with other countries in the region that do not recognize same-sex marriage.
Many critics of same-sex marriage cite the work of Stanley Kurtz, a pundit at the right-wing Hoover Institution (which describes him in his official bio as an "outspoken combatant in America's culture wars"). Kurtz argues that gay marriage in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden has destroyed the institution of heterosexual marriage. There are several problems with his work, most notably that:
1. Same-sex marriage isn't actually legal in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. These countries have domestic partnership laws, comparable to those of California and Vermont.
2. Marriage decline in Scandinavian nations is comparable to marriage decline in other relatively affluent European nations that do not legally recognize same-sex relationships, such as France and Germany.
3. Marriage decline has been ongoing for decades, and does not correlate to legal recognition of same-sex relationships.
OK, I researched it you ***** ignorant hayseed... now what? - cmp1966, on 11/16/2008, -3/+25To repeat what I've posted elsewhere: I'm not gay. I am religious. And I'm scared to death that we've just found a way to institute religious rule by vote. Not everyone believes that gay marriage is a sin. There are religious organizations that say it is not, that they accept gay marriage. Yet the churches have found a way to sponsor a bill which is based on a religious belief held by a majority of religions, and called upon their congregations to vote their religious beliefs in order to force the state (which has no interest in having such a law; gay marriage is no threat to society) to impose this religious belief upon people and religious organizations which do not share them.
I can neither deny nor defend what I have been taught about homosexuality. I can not reconcile those teachings with what I know about friends I have that are gay. But I don't have to. I am an American and I still believe that no religion has the right to impose their beliefs on us. Not even mine. Not even by vote. As Americans, we are suppose to defend the rights of our minorities from the excesses of the majority. Our churches are out of line here. We've done these people wrong. And we've set a very dangerous precedent.
Whether you are gay or straight: what has happened here should scare you. - sockpuppets, on 11/16/2008, -3/+22Are you coming onto me in a way I don't understand?
- Volkriot, on 11/16/2008, -21/+39I hate when people say ***** like this. Generalizations
I live in California, in the Bay Area in fact (lots of locals disappointed in the passage of this injustice).
Not all Californians think alike so please don't assume to know our intelligence, especially considering that more then 48 percent of us voted NO on this measure.
Secondly fear and hate mongering was not what the Pro 8 people did, that is what you perceive. What they actually did is they lied, used distracting topics and played to people's prejudices of what it means to be homosexual. They did not put ads on television encouraging hatred or threatening peoples sense of safety. They simply played to prejudices that people (many of whom have never met a gay person) have about gays.
So the idea that you think people bought fear and hate mongering is foolish. People manifest such feelings from their prejudices. And overwhelmingly it was the older vote that pushed this measure over the top. The younger vote BTW was still extremely low. So the one population that could have defeated this measure with their progressive liberal values, could not be bothered.
Same tactics work just as well in your country's politics.
On the upside the Governor of California has already explained that they Prop will not hold up
My point is STFU, you don't know California, that's why you moved your ass to Canada - mavere, on 11/16/2008, -6/+24A democracy gives people the right to have a say in their government, not other people's lives.
We all grew up knowing marriage was the ultimate act of love, a commitment to spend the rest of your life with someone. The piece of paper you get is merely a symbolic representation of that and only that, not of any God or ideology, just love. What the California Supreme Court ruled was you cannot deny that symbol to anyone.
Then came the people saying "we were here first, so ***** you." - redenvelope49, on 11/16/2008, -7/+24Thank you Mormons for uniting gays and making them stronger…. All your millions served the GLBTQ community well!
NYC Protest was awesome! Especially the 300-500 that didn’t stop the protest and marched all the way up to Stonewall Bar! That was powerful!
Here is a response to "Why do they need to get Married. It is just a piece of paper"
It gives the husband/wife the right to inherit property and money with out paying taxes. It gives rights in regards to child custody. It gives hospital visitation rights. The way things stand now a gay couple could be together for 50 years and one of the spouses would be denied hospital visitation rights or say because he is “not” family. A marriage gives the right to be just like everyone else and validated in the eyes of the country in which GLBTQ individuals, pay taxes, fight in wars and serve in politics.
And to clarify to everyone – Nobody is asking churches to change their stance on marriage. They have every right to do what they want to do in their churches BUT they have no say when it comes to legal marriages. All gays want to do is go to Civil Court and get married – GOD is not involved.
The Church has to stay out of the State. The Church has to stay out of our Bedrooms. I don’t think you need your pastor laying in bed with you… unless you are in to that…. - inactive, on 11/16/2008, -1/+18Is anyone else bothered that the government has ANYTHING to do with marriage, gay or straight?
I think they should collect a modest tax from us, to provide basic services and utilites, and stay the ***** out of everything else. - Appity, on 11/16/2008, -7/+24What does marriage even have to do with the government? Nothing. It is a religious institution and as such the government should not be involved in it in any way. Give people whatever licenses you want for spousal rights and tax purposes and leave "marrying" couples up to churches, and everyone wins. Then your church can decide if it wants to marry someone or not. Having a constitutional amendment to "protect marriage" is a joke.
We cannot have marriages both in churches and by the state, as it violates the first amendment (separation of church and state). While the notion of "traditional marriage" is not a good argument, churches have nonetheless held the word 'marriage' as part of their custom for a very long time, and the government cannot force them to change their view on it. The word is theirs.
Optimally, what should be done is simple. The states should not issue marriage licenses, and should instead grant civil unions to any couple who wants it. Civil unions would feature every benefit that comes with state marriages currently.
We should then take away the clergy's ability to conduct civil union ceremonies in the name of the state. They can still conduct a religious ceremony called "marriage", but they just can't say "By the power vested in me by the state of ..."
Religious ceremonies for marriage will not be recognized by the state as a civil union. After all, that would violate the 1st amendment. The only valid legal document would be the state issued certificate of civil union. However, religions can conduct marriage ceremonies on couples they choose.
Issues like this are exactly why separation of church and state was enacted by the founding fathers. I fear that any route other than this one will lead to an infinite limbo just like we're seeing now with California. - alexacastro, on 11/16/2008, -1/+17I was wondering that too, especially since they're TAKING AWAY children from loving parents who have already adopted them and made a home with them.
Do they think they'll "turn" the kids gay?! How ridiculous. In case they haven't noticed, gay people are born of straight couples!
We need all the loving couples we can get willing to adopt. I'm sick of all this ballyhoo against gay or unmarried couples. If they're stable, loving, and nurturing, WTF is the problem!? - lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -3/+19When an ambulance comes to assist their non-married partner of many years, and only family members can ride, that means only married couples, and no substitution. That's how my friend Charlene was treated differently. By the ambulance, she had to follow. By her hospital room before she died, she had to wait outside while administrators contacted her wife's family to say she could go in to see her.
Just one instance I know of that a friend went through.
Next, you should do research on to why heterosexuals deserve different "rights" or "privileges" when it comes to adopting a person. Or rather, why they do not. - JasonAdams13, on 11/16/2008, -1/+17But Obama was also against Prop 8. Suck on THAT
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -6/+21Then, in order to prevent that, heterosexuals who are opposed to marriage equality should take up the charge of changing State and U.S. Constitutions, to refer to all unions as something other than marriage. Because superior rights granted to married couples, which aren't rights granted equally, will not last.
- omnithought, on 11/16/2008, -8/+23This is coming to a head just like the black civil rights movement 50 years ago. I can't wait until we have no more socially accepted bigotry.
To those who argue about the "definition of marriage" remember this: marriage is a concept invented by man. We can change it any time we like, and it is good to evolve the concept of marriage as society evolves. Or would you rather we simply never progress and live in the dark ages? Remember that the "definition" of marriage excluded interracial marriages not that long ago. It was a hotly contested then as this is now. Time for us to grow up and let consenting adults be consenting adults.
As for the "sanctity" of marriage, have you looked around lately? Adultery and divorce are rampant. There is no sanctity to preserve. At least these folks want to give it a shot. - analogkid01, on 11/16/2008, -1/+16What a ridiculous argument. You could just as easily say that global warming is caused by decreasing numbers of pirates in the world.
- jmuh, on 11/16/2008, -1/+15Well, to be fair, the crux of Arkansas Act 1 is marriage, in that they are limiting adoption to "married" couples only. If gay couples had the option to marry in the first place, Arkansas Act 1 would have a lesser impact on them.
As for unmarried, straight couples, I have to admit, I haven't really looked into the impact on them. Are there a lot of unmarried, straight couples being affected? I feel like it is difficult for unmarried couples in general to gain adoptions, isn't it? Please excuse this silly example, but isn't this why Angelina Jolie adopted the last two children under her name only because she is not married to Brad Pitt? - PrintScrn12, on 11/16/2008, -1/+14That is Obama's personal view as a Christian not necessarily his political view. He voted against the "Federal Marriage Amendment". He was against the constitutional changes, including prop 8.
- HuntGather, on 11/16/2008, -8/+21Really? Letting them continue to marry was going to hurt you in some way? This is such *****. It's not like you're being forced to perform the marriage ceremony, or go to gay weddings, or even look at their wedding pictures. If knowing you live in a world where two adults in a commited relationship can be married by a church THAT IS WILLING TO PERFORM THE MARRIAGE causes you more psychological damage than it does to them having their LEGAL RIGHT to marry voted away by a slight majority that thinks their way of life is icky, then you need psychological help.
- manzplan, on 11/16/2008, -9/+21nope.. I moved to Canada because the girl I met refused to move to the USA....
I am glad many people voted as you did, but the majority voted the other way..most often because they were rallied TO vote in this case mostly by the Church.
Sorry if my comment went too far - ParanoydAndroid, on 11/17/2008, -1/+13You sir, are an idiot. Our constitution was in no way, shape, or form, designed to be a christian document, and our country - be it largely christian - is not a "christian nation" insofar as Christianity should have any sort of preference. Observe:
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. ... [I]t will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258
We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.
-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.
-- George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 497, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom
Hell, according to many people, including two notable reverends of the times, here quoted, Washington himself wasn't even a Christian.
Sir, Washington was a Deist."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife, to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans
I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27
So our country was not founded Christian, was never meant to be Christian, was never meant to have morals codified into law solely because Christians wanted it, and most important - With men who spent months arguing, negotiating, threatening, and haggling over a document that came out to be no more than 4 pages, how stupid do you have to be to assume they didn't take every word, comma, and period into careful consideration? They said what they meant, exactly how they meant to say it. - MadOgre, on 11/16/2008, -8/+20How many times to the people have to vote this down before the vocal minorities give it up and look for an alternative way for a resolution? Instead of pitching fits and trying to get legal elections held... go after the problem from another direction. Use your heads instead of acting emo about it. Flank them.
/Against discrimination. - AFelsinger, on 11/16/2008, -30/+42I was at the San Francisco rally. It was a great experience with a wide variety of speakers. It really seems as if the mormon church shot themselves in the foot... the movement for gay rights really is stronger than ever now.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -3/+15Do straights really want to marry? Do you think that that argument will prevent people from wanting the same marriage they've wanted all their life? That the girls have grown up dreaming about?
I think they do. It's one of those things where society has impressed upon us that finding love, a stable relationship, and getting married is just what you do when you get older. I know I've got relatives bugging me all the time about "when am I going to get married" because it's so much more to people than a legally binding piece of paper. - whatthefu, on 11/16/2008, -5/+17It might be a good thing that Prop 8 passed. It really puts gay rights back in the spotlight, and in the end this could help them.
- RegurgitatdGuts, on 11/16/2008, -4/+16TAX THE MORMONS... want to get in on civic & political discourse like everyone else? then pay the damned admission. if you want anyone to respect your opinion on government matters at all, stop hiding behind your g0d & your ivory towers, or you shouldn't be reaping the benefits of publicly funded government institutions, such as the police, fire department, water & sanitation utilities, et al. pay up or shut up...
- Pake, on 11/16/2008, -3/+15Marriage is defined by man and as such, meanings to words words are subject to change over time. *****, 40 years ago, marriage was defined as a union between men and women of the same race just to point of the obvious flaw in your statement.
- sfhock, on 11/16/2008, -2/+13ummmm... and exactly how does one affect the other? Please enlighten me, I love to learn...
- eir574, on 11/17/2008, -3/+14"As fun as it is and as good as it feels I believe anything beyond intercourse being intended for procreation is a perverse confusion."
I assume you're absolutely disgusted that infertile, heterosexual couples have sex, then. There are certainly married, heterosexual couples in which one partner has never been physically able to have children, and then there are also plenty of married, heterosexual couples who are past the age at which having a child is a biological possibility.
I've heard some people say that at least with heterosexual couples, the possibility of procreation exists, no matter how remote. My mother had to have a hysterectomy due to uterine cancer, which forced her into early menopause. There's no way she's going to have a child at this point. As if the menopause isn't enough of an obstacle, she doesn't have a womb anymore.
As much as I don't like to think about this, I know that she and my father are still sexually active. It's terrible that you think they should abstain from sex for the rest of their lives just because my mother was unfortunate enough to have cancer.
"My statement ('it should provide a good lesson') was as serious and sincere as possible."
I'm sorry, then, that I assumed that you were making light of the situation. You were quite seriously using someone else's pain in order to prove your moral superiority. That's so much better, isn't it?
But, you know, otherwise you seem like a really nice person. "STFU" is definitely something decent people say to one another when they disagree. - Clbull, on 11/16/2008, -6/+17Although I am not gay or bisexual myself, I have respect for gay rights. I think that banning same sex marriage was a bad thing
- mrfunktastic, on 11/16/2008, -0/+10Um, homosexuality != just trying to get into a butt, dude.
- redenvelope49, on 11/16/2008, -3/+14It gives the husband/wife the right to inherit property and money with out paying taxes. It gives rights in regards to child custody. It gives hospital visitation rights. The way things stand now a gay couple could be together for 50 years and one of the spouses would be denied hospital visitation rights or say because he is “not” family. A marriage gives the right to be just like everyone else and validated in the eyes of the country in which GLBTQ individuals, pay taxes, fight in wars and serve in politics.
And to clarify to everyone – Nobody is asking churches to change their stance on marriage. They have every right to do what they want to do in their churches BUT they have no say when it comes to legal marriages. All gays want to do is go to Civil Court and get married – GOD is not involved.
The Church has to stay out of the State. The Church has to stay out of our Bedrooms. I don’t think you need your pastor laying in bed with you… unless you are in to that…. - eir574, on 11/16/2008, -0/+11I've been told by people on digg that the first amendment refers only to various sects of Christianity . . . seriously. Same with the clause in the constitution that says that no religious test can be required to hold public office. Apparently, that just means that any Christian regardless of the particular church he or she belongs to can hold public office. Whenever people say that, I always ask how they'd feel if someone in a position of power said that they're not actually a True Christian, but I never really get an answer.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -3/+14I will never move on while the majority supports inequality.
- Pake, on 11/16/2008, -5/+16Hospitals often time only allow family to visit patients and as such, a person's partner is not legally considered family and is denied the ability to visit. Also, as long as the person is not considered family, the couple can be denied a family insurance plan by health insurance companies. As for adoption, sure, it's a privilege, but answer this: Why is it easier for a married couple to adopt over a gay couple? Simple answer: The word "married" is key.
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -4/+15This is why ballots are a terrible idea. The majority should not be able to tell the minority how to live their lives.
- stonebear, on 11/16/2008, -0/+11That's why a lot of democracies, including California, are set up as a Republic. Ballots alone are not enough to wreak havoc; the result must pass muster with the legislature, as well as the supreme court. Thus prop. 8 will likely go the way of prop. 187, which was eventually deemed too discriminatory despite its sole application to illegal aliens. Of course, that is not to say a Republic is not subject its own peculiar abuses; such as the usurpation of the government by wealthy corporate, and even foreign interests.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 528 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is