What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
1189 Comments
- boomchockalocka, on 05/26/2009, -78/+635... with liberty and justice for some.
- tgjerusalem, on 05/26/2009, -48/+385Civil rights should not depend on popular vote.
That said, this is a temporary setback. If nothing else, this is a fight we will win via attrition; marriage equality is favored by the young, by people who may not even remember a time before civil unions, and for whom gay couples have always been a visible part of basic social fabric and daily life. Our opponents are disproportionately old, and getting older.
The 18,000 gay couples already married in California will stay married. Heterosexual marriage will not crumble. California will not spontaneously combust in divine retribution any more than Massachusetts has. Life will go on, and familiarity breeds apathy even among those who dislike us. When marriage equality causes no dramatic change in your own life, you stop caring. But those for whom marriage equality would mean seeing their own marriages or the marriages of their friends and family recognized as equal and valid under the law, justice delayed breeds greater desire to see this corrected. We will care more as time goes on and as our goals are increasingly reachable. Our opponents will care less.
The young who have grown up seeing their friends mistreated and denied rights will object, will see that the degrading and insulting claims about our relationships are false, that the fears that somehow our marriages will lead to the collapse of civilization are nothing but the hysterical paranoia of the ignorant and the stupid.
And they will be embarrassed for their state. For all the posturing the coasts tend to have towards the midwest, California has been shown up by Iowa.
It's only been 10 years since Vermont first started recognizing civil unions, and the predictions of men marrying goats and rains of fire have yet to materialize, and civil unions have gone from shocking and terrifying to the conservative fall-back position. One way or another, I still be shocked if in 5 years California is not recognizing our marriages again. - tony11572, on 05/26/2009, -76/+333Califailnia.
- flanflan567, on 05/26/2009, -90/+312You've got to be ***** kidding me.
Shame on them. - flanflan567, on 05/26/2009, -18/+197To quote the 1967 court case Loving vs. Virginia, in which the ban on interracial marriage was struck down:
'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."' - inactive, on 05/26/2009, -25/+195This is now going to move on to the US Supreme court. If a law comes from the "people" or their representatives, then the Supreme Court can nullify such law if it violates the constitution. No matter what happens, one side or the other is going to be supremely disappointed.
- sugarazor, on 05/26/2009, -88/+249The people are wrong.
- chetchez, on 05/26/2009, -20/+161Is there something wrong with having 2 dads? Jesus had 2 dads.
- amerikate, on 05/26/2009, -43/+166Laws like Prop 8 that ban recognition of gay marriage cannot stand against the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Today's ruling makes me very sad, but I know that it is only a matter of time before this becomes a state's rights versus the Constitution issue heard at the US Supreme Court.
Separate is not equal. Gays and lesbians deserve the same rights to marry as straight people. - kward711, on 05/26/2009, -10/+120@plzhateme
"Gays have every right as a straight person in a civil unions"
this is simply not true. Marriage grants hundreds of legal rights that a civil union does not. - sugarazor, on 05/26/2009, -29/+138You mean you're glad the court upheld the ability for a majority to oppress a minority? I'm sure the Jim Crow South would've loved you.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/26/2009, -25/+120Why do you want a civil rights issue to be decided by popular vote? What precedent can you cite for this?
- Coven, on 05/26/2009, -11/+97Look up Defense of Marriage Act. Gay couples most certainly do not have the same rights as heterosexual ones.
- TrevorBradley, on 05/26/2009, -15/+91Just like with interracial marriage, where all people shared the same right to get married to someone of the same skin color.
- boomchockalocka, on 05/26/2009, -20/+91When the will of the people is to discriminate and create sub-classes of people? Yes.
Separate is not equal. - fyngyrz, on 05/26/2009, -19/+89No, they're not wrong because they have a different opinion. They're wrong because they are acting as a majority taking rights away from a minority. This is one of the key pitfalls of a straight democratic system.
If the majority wanted to eat human babies made into burgers at McDonalds, would it be ok with you? As the people would "have spoken"? What if they decided they wanted the blacks to be slaves again?
Clearly, this should not be reasonable. The idea is that sometimes the people, for various reasons, actually do the (very) wrong thing. It is for this reason that a better political system will protect minorities from ANY such attempt by the majority.
The California supreme court erred (again, and deeply) by disenfranchising a minority because of the prejudices of the majority.
The good news is that the California constitution has to comply with the US constitution, and odds are excellent that eventually, this will be stricken at the federal level. 14th amendment as applied to the incorporation of the bill of rights (amendments 1...10), you see. Well, probably you don't, but that's ok. - flanflan567, on 05/26/2009, -26/+96Honestly, screw you. I'm sick of you people acting like you're so morally superior and using it as an excuse to impose your views and values on us.
Move to Iran, where you belong. - sugarazor, on 05/26/2009, -30/+97Discrimination is not a valid opinion... but you stay classy!
- TrevorBradley, on 05/26/2009, -8/+73A geek's argument as to why there should be no civil unions:
If we were modeling society's constructs as a database, marriages and civil unions wouldn't be in a different table. They share all the same properties, and differ only in name. Having them as separate isn't a normalized database. Even a field distinguishing the two would be redundant. - Yawgmoth, on 05/26/2009, -12/+75So by that logic people incapable of procreating should not be allowed to marry either. So if I get injured or paralyzed or suddenly I start shooting blanks, am I going to be a permanent bachelor?
- flanflan567, on 05/26/2009, -19/+77You, sir, fail to see the difference between the "will of the people" and the tyranny of a majority over an unpopular minority.
If there are more racists then there are black people, then does that make it right for racists to make discriminatory laws against them? - kward711, on 05/26/2009, -6/+62and I can't wait for you to end up in court to suppress someone's constitutional rights.
I mean basically what you are saying is equivalent to saying that blacks should not be allowed to protest against discrimination because they infer upon free speech.
please look up what free speech means before you try to make an intelligent post. - sugarazor, on 05/26/2009, -15/+70I'm still waiting for a single logical, legal argument against gay marriage. I pose this question in every gay marriage topic and I still haven't heard one... any takers?
- Gguillorn, on 05/26/2009, -20/+74Because they are standing between citizens and their rights.
- lamejoketeller, on 05/26/2009, -29/+8244% of Americans believe God created the earth and its inhabitants exactly as they appear today. Sometimes majority rule is absurd.
- TrevorBradley, on 05/26/2009, -3/+55In Canada, when our heated discussion about the term "marriage" vs "civil union" was at a head, someone suggested the term "civil marriage" as a compromise. At that point most everyone pretty much gave in, knowing the real debate was over.. The semantic argument just got too stupid.
- LouisCipher777, on 05/26/2009, -24/+76Look, ive said this before and I will say it again. Marriage is a completely religious concept. It is up to the various religions how that want to deal with this.
The solution to the problem is simple, get the government out of the marriage game completely. Make it "civil unions" for everyone, gay or straight, to get the benefits currently assigned to marriage. If you want an actual wedding, go to whichever church will perform your particular brand of marriage, and enjoy.
now you are just trying to force everyone to conform to the half-assed belief that the various religions should all subscribe to, and approve of, your beliefs. This entire argument goes against the first amendment. - labuzan, on 05/26/2009, -9/+5944% isn't a majority.
- clvngodess, on 05/26/2009, -28/+78So all these people who are pleased with the California decision also advocate apartheid politics, corruption of the church (It was church funding for political gain --that ain't the job of religion) and discrimination based on a sexual fetish about what other people, consenting law abiding adults do in their own homes. Ain't "love" grand?
- sugarazor, on 05/26/2009, -4/+54 The role of the court is to INTERPRET the law... It's only judicial activism when you disagree, right?
- flanflan567, on 05/26/2009, -9/+57To quote the 1967 court case Loving vs. Virginia, in which the ban on interracial marriage was struck down:
'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."'
I'm starting to feel like a broken record. - flanflan567, on 05/26/2009, -4/+52It's not judicial activism when the judges are upholding the equal protection guarantee of our constitution by getting rid of discrimination. That's their job.
- ftx437, on 05/26/2009, -10/+58"Today’s decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George for a 6-to-1 majority, said that same-sex couples still have the right to civil unions, which gives them the ability to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” But the justices said that the voters had clearly expressed their will to limit the formality of marriage to heterosexual couples."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.ht ...
Meaning that they cannot be married by the definition of the word but they can still have civil unions - tgjerusalem, on 05/26/2009, -3/+49First, civil unions don't convey all the rights of legal marriage. It isn't transferable state to state the way marriage is, it doesn't have federal benefits or immigration rights, etc.
Beyond that, the entire purpose of creating the "civil union" category is to insist that marriage is the real deal, while gays get the half-assed copy version. It will always be inferior, because that's what it was designed to be. - sugarazor, on 05/26/2009, -5/+50Not all states offer civil unions, and in those that do, there are many things that make them separate but unequal.
- tgjerusalem, on 05/26/2009, -8/+52Separate institutions are inherently unequal. If they weren't, there would be no reason to have separate institutions to begin with.
- s73v3r, on 05/26/2009, -7/+50Opinions - only pro-civil rights count on Digg.
Fixed that for you. - MindStalker, on 05/26/2009, -2/+44plzhateme: Sorry your getting voted down to nothing, but technically your wrong. While INSIDE of California civil-unions receive the same rights as marriage if someone travels outside the state even different sexed civil-unions receive little to no rights. In my state and many others civil-union couples aren't even considered family for medical decisions and visitation rights.
- PabloMac, on 05/26/2009, -17/+59You're right. The majority of the people made a decision, previously. Twice.
- Hetman, on 05/26/2009, -6/+47They already have denominations that will marry them. Unfortunatly the country is violating there first amendment rights and are not allowing these churches the right to marry who they wish to.
- nebbo, on 05/26/2009, -7/+47Shame on California for being short sighted and allowing amendment of their constitution via a majority vote.
- tgjerusalem, on 05/26/2009, -8/+48I am a Christian, genius. You don't actually define the religion as a whole, and you don't speak as the voice of the divine either.
And you may "go to your death" for this, but I seriously doubt your children will. And your grandchildren will be embarrassed by it. I had a great uncle who from his youth was a passionate defender of anti-miscegenation laws, and he had very specific religious arguments for why he considered this to be a just and holy fight he would die defending. He was not unique, he was a standard example of a devout white Virginian man of his generation and social class. But he lost, his claims have been dismissed, his theological position now relegated to the lunatic fringe shunned by the rest of society, he is dead and he is a somewhat embarrassing chapter in our family history.
And we're not actually sterile, you know. We do have children. But moreover, the children of our straight friends and family are growing up knowing us too. - Coven, on 05/26/2009, -7/+47FlanFlan posted above, refer to Loving vs. Virginia. Just like interracial marriage, this needs to be nationwide.
- tgjerusalem, on 05/26/2009, -7/+47I could get married next week to another man, in my childhood church, by the priest who baptized me if I wanted to. The Episcopalians will bless our marriages and recognize them as holy and legitimate. The Unitarians, MCC, liberal Quakers, Reconstructionist, Reform and some branches of Conservative Judaism, the Church of England, etc. Even some non-denominational protestants.
'Marriage' is a single word used to refer to a variety of separate institutions. The matter at hand with prop 8 is *not* a religious institution, it is the civil and legal institution. They may have similar ancestors and currently bear the same name, but these institutions have developed into entirely distinct and separate entities.
In the case of my childhood church, should I be married there my religious institution would recognize my marriage, while my home state of Virginia would not. Likewise, churches routinely refuse to bless any couples they want, for any reason. Catholic churches routinely refuse to bless marriages where both partners aren't Catholic. That is their right, but they do not have the right to demand that legal recognition of inter-religious or even Catholic/Protestant marriages be restricted based on their particular theological claims. Why should the Catholic (or Baptist, or whatever) definition of marriage be treated as adequate basis for law, while the Episcopalian definition of marriage is apparently irrelevant?
If you want to take the word 'marriage' our of the lawbooks entirely, you're free to try. I suspect that will be a much harder battle than just having the current contracts extended to our couples. But as long as the term 'marriage' is used to refer to a secular civil contract, it is not in that context a religious institution, and the tenants of specific denominations should not be treated as adequate reason to restrict a distinct segment of the population from access to this contract. - PopcornDave, on 05/26/2009, -1/+40No, the California Supreme Court didn't rule on the issue of gay marriage. If you read their decision they clearly stated that they ruled on the ability of the voters of California to amend the state constitution via the amendment process. The court specifically stated that their ruling in no way showed favor or disfavor to the issue of gay marriage.
- 7m7uf, on 05/26/2009, -8/+47Check it, yo.
Go to some place that allows gay marriage. Get married. But before that take a picture of all the money you're spending at (wherever you're at's) local shops and the such. Send those pictures to your local shops and whatnot. Just a friendly reminder that they've missed the gay-train because of bigots around them. Attach some nice numbers to companies, churches and organizations -- EVEN POLITICIANS -- that allowed prop 8 to happen and see if they have any words for them. - onemanfilmcrew, on 05/26/2009, -20/+59Way to go California, you've now set a legal precedent that the rights of a minority group can be stripped away by a simple majority vote. I wonder how long it's going to take before an activist puts a ballot measure banning Mormons from voting in California. The precedent has been set, so they can do it now...
- sugarazor, on 05/26/2009, -2/+41Yeah, that's not an argument against gay marriage... I'm not even sure if that's an argument for or against anything. And only 11 states accept common-law.
- TheR3dMenace, on 05/26/2009, -0/+39Miniature American flags for others!
- fiatjustitia, on 05/26/2009, -7/+45"You can't breed like we can."
Bigot.
This is what it comes down to. You don't even view gays/lesbians as the same species as you, do you? What if there was a straight couple who couldn't have kids? What then?
"Will you die for your right to make a sham marriage and then imagine you're just like your straight neighbors?"
They are exactly like their straight neighbors. They are exactly like you and me. They are not different from straight people. -
Show 51 - 100 of 1215 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is