Why California needs Proposition 8..........

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MH2007
I am still leaning to vote No, but some people that have yet to vote on this Proposition are being lied to brazenly by the No on 8 campaign and may be influenced by those lies. People deserve to make their decision based on facts.

Good. There's hope for you. I'm straight. Nothing's going to change for me, one way or the other. Please don't vote to eliminate a right of some of my friends and business relationships.

Thanks.

As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.

So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?

I didn't want to expand this to a (potentially dragged on) discussion about rights but stick to the specific examples of what the campaigns are doing, but I'll indulge a bit.

The constituency of the state of California has the right to voice what they feel should be in the Constitution of the State of California, including a restrictive definition of marriage. Obviously, this a very old right, much older than the right to marry that gays gained when judges recently interpreted the State Constitution to grant them that right.

Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal. I don't know how to portray this more obviously than to point to the most relevant example that 96% of the States in the US do not allow gay marriage.

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

Ok, so if the US decided to discriminate against YOU in such a way, you wouldn't demand equal treatment? (actually you define it as protection in the US but the meaning is the same).

Basically you're saying that segregation can be re-instituted and it would be no probleme because that is what the law says, discrimination is up to the people of the states?

My understanding is that the Fourteenth Amendment would prevent that from happening in any way that I can readily conceive.

If I do suffer in some way in the future that I perceive to be discrimination, then my recourse would likely be to take it to the courts as the was done to obtain right for gays to marry. At that point it would likely be parties with rights that are in conflict, which is exactly what we have in Prop 8.

Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

Equal protection, if you like, it's the same thing, only reason i referred to equal treatment is because it's in our constitution, it means the same thing.

So basically, you're not too keen on the constitution? Except when it suits your purposes, i suppose?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: MH2007

I didn't say that I believed anything was "intrinsically different", just that some people hold this belief and have the right to voice their position. In the case of Prop 8, they have the right to amend the CA Constitution to voice their position.

I feel the need to repeat this, since I guess it was missed the first time. Equal Treatment is an ideal, not a right. It is obviously something that we can aspire to but if you even take a cursory look at the real world it is not reality, particularly in the case of gay marriage.

That's news to me. Good thing we didn't follow your reality logic when deciding other easily accepted, controversial views nowadays.

Dear minorities, the equal treatment you fought for was only an ideal and not a right. We are contemplating taking it away again since it's not a right.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: MH2007
...
Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

This might sound way out there, but can you imagine a similar argument being used in the 1840-50s in the southern u.s. regarding slavery?

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: MH2007

Cliffs:
In short, my point is this: If someone really cares about whether or not gay marriage will be taught in schools as a factor in how they are voting on Prop 8, they don't deserve to be lied to about it. Least of all by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

So, in the situations that the supporters of prop H8 are using as "evil taught in school," these are instances of teaching tolerance to individual people.

In the same way that kids should be taught to tolerate people of all color and sex, they should understand that discriminating based on sexual preference is no different.

These classes are not in any way addressing Gay Marriage. They teach tolerance to Gay individuals. The GOP HATE machine is stretching the truth far more than those No on H8 adds are. In fact, the claim that Gay marriage will not be taught is absolutely true.

This is simply not true, I already proved that gay marriage will be taught in schools and that the No on 8 campaigns knows it will be. You chose to snip that out and I have no desire to rehash the whole thing, but will put in an abbreviated portion:

The No on 8 campaign claims it will not be taught, yet at the same time claim that parents can pull their children out of this instruction ... which supposedly isn't happening!

As for the rest of your silliness ("prop H8", "GOP HATE machine", etc.) I will ignore it as it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

I cut out part of the comment just to shorten the string. your comment proves nothing. link? all of the vote "yes" commercials are referring to an incident involving teaching tolerance, and NOT MARRIAGE.

You're failure to understand who is being mislead does not make your opinion valid.

Understand?

You pretend to be undecided, when you're simply trying to give yourself excuses to deny the rights of individuals you may not understand, and probably are uncomfortable with.

It is completely relevant to refer to the GOP Hate machine, b/c that is where the funding for supporting this discriminatory, bigoted proposition comes from.

as for thinking it was "outside the power of the AG to overturn the previous proposition.." who says? Who is supposed to fight for individual rights when they are being denied? claiming that activist judges or or attorney Generals are acting against the will of the people is such a duplicitous argument.

You claim to believe in the rights of everyone, yet you claim that the lawmakers should allow discriminatory laws to pass by without thought. Also, you claim that the voice of those who choose to discriminate should be heard.

No, they shouldn't be heard: those ignorant, hateful pricks.

You have it backwards, I was referring to the No on 8 campaign position. Specifically, Jack O?Connell's claim that "our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage." This has been so widely distributed I don't feel it requires a link. It is also demonstrably untrue. Since you want a link, here the Education Code clearly states that marriage is taught

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-...52000&file=51890-51891

I understand quite well who is being misled, your condescension without a shred of evidence does not impress me. You are also basically calling me a liar with no proof whatsoever, which I do not appreciate.

I mentioned that No on 8 has been much more highly funded than Yes, another reason why I think diverting into a discussion on who is funding is irrelevant. I have no love for the GOP either but you're going to have to come up with some actual evidence rather than just label them as "the GOP Hate machine"

As for the AG, I never said he was acting "outside" his power, I said it was beyond the proper boundaries. He is an enforcer, not a policy maker. I also never said anything about activist judges. Just which one of us is not being truthful?

Obviously the voice of everyone should be heard. That's the entire point of having elections. Interesting that you would disagree with this and seek to silence those that you disagree with. Just who is the intolerant person here?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: MH2007
...
Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

Equal protection under the law is a right. The problem with achieving it to its fullest is assholes like you that want to write discrimination into the laws of society.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: Ns1

So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?

/discussion

Wrong

Really, you said exactly that just above this response. here you go

Originally posted by: MH2007
In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

You meant to type, "yes, that is my opinion," didn't you?
I can see how your fingers might have slipped.

You might want to clarify because I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: Ns1

So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?

/discussion

Wrong

I don't see what's wrong here.



If you vote YES that's pretty much what you're saying.

Scrap all the other shit, because that's the one and only thing it boils down to.

No, that is not correct. Read what I wrote in response to JohnOfSheffield, I don't care to write it again and I doubt anyone would really want me to either.

I read what you wrote already.

:roll: Dude, whatever

your argument is that you don't think it should be voted down simply because you "believe" that the NO campaign is being duplicitous.

You don't "believe" that the YES campaign is being duplicitous, when in fact they are. You have no proof that dude on dude marriage will be taught in school--you simply CLAIM THAT IT WILL BE. see the difference?

This is how you weakly attempt to disguise your prejudices.

GET IT?

I gave an argument as to why I believe that the No on 8 campaign is being duplicitous. You dismissed it out of hand without consideration.

You state that the Yes on 8 campaign is duplicitous. I countered that argument above so I won't rehash it here.

I am not trying to disguise anything.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: MH2007
...
Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

Equal protection under the law is a right. The problem with achieving it to its fullest is assholes like you that want to write discrimination into the laws of society.

If it was about a law making it illegal to marry in a church... He'd scream for the constitution...

And then i could tell him... i don't believe freedom of religion is a right, it's an ideal.

Both arguments would be equally daft, perhaps he gets it but most likely he'll just ignore it, they aren't too bright, people like him.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MH2007
I am still leaning to vote No, but some people that have yet to vote on this Proposition are being lied to brazenly by the No on 8 campaign and may be influenced by those lies. People deserve to make their decision based on facts.

Good. There's hope for you. I'm straight. Nothing's going to change for me, one way or the other. Please don't vote to eliminate a right of some of my friends and business relationships.

Thanks.

As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.

So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?

I didn't want to expand this to a (potentially dragged on) discussion about rights but stick to the specific examples of what the campaigns are doing, but I'll indulge a bit.

The constituency of the state of California has the right to voice what they feel should be in the Constitution of the State of California, including a restrictive definition of marriage. Obviously, this a very old right, much older than the right to marry that gays gained when judges recently interpreted the State Constitution to grant them that right.

Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal. I don't know how to portray this more obviously than to point to the most relevant example that 96% of the States in the US do not allow gay marriage.

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

Ok, so if the US decided to discriminate against YOU in such a way, you wouldn't demand equal treatment? (actually you define it as protection in the US but the meaning is the same).

Basically you're saying that segregation can be re-instituted and it would be no probleme because that is what the law says, discrimination is up to the people of the states?

My understanding is that the Fourteenth Amendment would prevent that from happening in any way that I can readily conceive.

If I do suffer in some way in the future that I perceive to be discrimination, then my recourse would likely be to take it to the courts as the was done to obtain right for gays to marry. At that point it would likely be parties with rights that are in conflict, which is exactly what we have in Prop 8.

Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

Equal protection, if you like, it's the same thing, only reason i referred to equal treatment is because it's in our constitution, it means the same thing.

So basically, you're not too keen on the constitution? Except when it suits your purposes, i suppose?

I do apologize, you even tried to clarify and I missed it.

When you said Equal Treatment I read it as the ideal of Egalitarianism ... and even missed it when you tried to correct me

Of course I think the Fourteenth Amendment should apply to gays but obviously (as a point of law) it does not right now. The fact that 96% of states do not allow gay marriage should make this plainly obvious.

Perhaps in the future it will. It may require that Prop 8 pass and then the Supreme Court get involved. I don't know when it will happen but hopefully soon. But in the meantime I do not believe that trampling on other peoples' rights is the correct way to go.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: MH2007
...
Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

Equal protection under the law is a right. The problem with achieving it to its fullest is assholes like you that want to write discrimination into the laws of society.

If it was about a law making it illegal to marry in a church... He'd scream for the constitution...

And then i could tell him... i don't believe freedom of religion is a right, it's an ideal.

Both arguments would be equally daft, perhaps he gets it but most likely he'll just ignore it, they aren't too bright, people like him.

You presume too much, but I missed an important point you were trying to make so it's understandable.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: MH2007

I didn't say that I believed anything was "intrinsically different", just that some people hold this belief and have the right to voice their position. In the case of Prop 8, they have the right to amend the CA Constitution to voice their position.

I feel the need to repeat this, since I guess it was missed the first time. Equal Treatment is an ideal, not a right. It is obviously something that we can aspire to but if you even take a cursory look at the real world it is not reality, particularly in the case of gay marriage.

That's news to me. Good thing we didn't follow your reality logic when deciding other easily accepted, controversial views nowadays.

Dear minorities, the equal treatment you fought for was only an ideal and not a right. We are contemplating taking it away again since it's not a right.

Admittedly I missed that JohnOfSheffield was referring to what is his equivalent of our Equal Protection but I am not exactly sure what you meant in your first paragraph. I suppose it's a moot point.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: MH2007
...
Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

This might sound way out there, but can you imagine a similar argument being used in the 1840-50s in the southern u.s. regarding slavery?

Setting aside that I regrettably missed that JohnOfSheffield was referring to Equal Protection, I am not sure that I understand. Emancipation did not occur until the 1860s, and Equal Protection did not happen until after that. Should I conclude you are referring to something else?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: MH2007
...
Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

This might sound way out there, but can you imagine a similar argument being used in the 1840-50s in the southern u.s. regarding slavery?

Setting aside that I regrettably missed that JohnOfSheffield was referring to Equal Protection, I am not sure that I understand. Emancipation did not occur until the 1860s, and Equal Protection did not happen until after that. Should I conclude you are referring to something else?

This is my point. Using an argument such as the above to rationalize and prolong something pretty indefensible. Granted it's not identical...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MH2007
I am still leaning to vote No, but some people that have yet to vote on this Proposition are being lied to brazenly by the No on 8 campaign and may be influenced by those lies. People deserve to make their decision based on facts.

Good. There's hope for you. I'm straight. Nothing's going to change for me, one way or the other. Please don't vote to eliminate a right of some of my friends and business relationships.

Thanks.

As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.

So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?

I didn't want to expand this to a (potentially dragged on) discussion about rights but stick to the specific examples of what the campaigns are doing, but I'll indulge a bit.

The constituency of the state of California has the right to voice what they feel should be in the Constitution of the State of California, including a restrictive definition of marriage. Obviously, this a very old right, much older than the right to marry that gays gained when judges recently interpreted the State Constitution to grant them that right.

Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal. I don't know how to portray this more obviously than to point to the most relevant example that 96% of the States in the US do not allow gay marriage.

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

Ok, so if the US decided to discriminate against YOU in such a way, you wouldn't demand equal treatment? (actually you define it as protection in the US but the meaning is the same).

Basically you're saying that segregation can be re-instituted and it would be no probleme because that is what the law says, discrimination is up to the people of the states?

My understanding is that the Fourteenth Amendment would prevent that from happening in any way that I can readily conceive.

If I do suffer in some way in the future that I perceive to be discrimination, then my recourse would likely be to take it to the courts as the was done to obtain right for gays to marry. At that point it would likely be parties with rights that are in conflict, which is exactly what we have in Prop 8.

Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

Equal protection, if you like, it's the same thing, only reason i referred to equal treatment is because it's in our constitution, it means the same thing.

So basically, you're not too keen on the constitution? Except when it suits your purposes, i suppose?

I do apologize, you even tried to clarify and I missed it.

When you said Equal Treatment I read it as the ideal of Egalitarianism ... and even missed it when you tried to correct me

Of course I think the Fourteenth Amendment should apply to gays but obviously (as a point of law) it does not right now. The fact that 96% of states do not allow gay marriage should make this plainly obvious.

Perhaps in the future it will. It may require that Prop 8 pass and then the Supreme Court get involved. I don't know when it will happen but hopefully soon. But in the meantime I do not believe that trampling on other peoples' rights is the correct way to go.

Do you understand the concept of tyrrany of the majority and how it may refer to majority rule but not democracy and certainly not a representative democracy such as mine or yours and most definently not according to neither mine nor your constitution?

If you do, then you will realise that equality is the highest form of justice.

You can find it in most texts among the best of men that have ever lived all around the world.

Give me ONE good reason why state should differ between a heterosexual and a homosexual marriage and remember that this is about state and separate is not equal.

One reason and i will concede.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...

I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

The No on 8 ad campaign still runs the soundbite of the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction even though they know it is misleading. What he actually says is that it is not required. While supposedly this is technically true (if in fact it is not a required part of 100% of students' curriculum), this is certainly disengenuous. Nearly all schools include instruction on marriage in their curriculum, usually at a very young age. The No on 8 people obviously know that gay marriage will be taught in schools, as they claim that parents can pull their children out of this instruction. The Yes on 8 people dispute this (that by itself would be a huge debate).

The point is that the No on 8 campaign claims it will not be taught, yet at the same time claim that parents can pull their children out of instruction that isn't happening.

The No on 8 campaign continues to run the ad as well as including the soundbite in other ads because they know it is effective at strongly implying something that will get people to vote no, even though they know is not true.

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.

What, exactly, do you object to about ending discrimination against gays in marriage, and then when teaching children about marriage, teaching them it's two people, including gays?

I understand the policitcal campaign has the bigots looking for something better than discrimination to get yes votes, and they picked the horror of children hearing marriage can include gay people, and that the opponents to the measure ran the ad with the 'required' language you object to and find disengenuous.

But none of that changes the underlying issue you are voting on. See my question above.

You don't vote for slavery because you think the anti-slavery people were disengenuous.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: MH2007

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

just out of curiosity how much is a black man worth to you these days?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Ns1
Ok, feel free to correct me

your whole argument is based on flawed commercials on the no on 8 campaign, and you believe that parents should have a right to decide what their kids do and don't learn in school.

you even were nice enough to throw in a few tangents of how gay marriage would "negatively affect their family"

is it any wonder that once 'Yes on 8' started running deceptive advertisements that support for 'Yes on 8' increased?

The proposition wasn't earning enough support on its own merits it had to drag education and children into the debate by fear mongering

and people bought it.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: MH2007

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

just out of curiosity how much is a black man worth to you these days?

Precisely 3/5ths. :roll:

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: MH2007
...
Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

This might sound way out there, but can you imagine a similar argument being used in the 1840-50s in the southern u.s. regarding slavery?

Setting aside that I regrettably missed that JohnOfSheffield was referring to Equal Protection, I am not sure that I understand. Emancipation did not occur until the 1860s, and Equal Protection did not happen until after that. Should I conclude you are referring to something else?

This is my point. Using an argument such as the above to rationalize and prolong something pretty indefensible. Granted it's not identical...

Well, I was making an observation. Anyways, it was my fault it was misinterpreted.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MH2007
I am still leaning to vote No, but some people that have yet to vote on this Proposition are being lied to brazenly by the No on 8 campaign and may be influenced by those lies. People deserve to make their decision based on facts.

Good. There's hope for you. I'm straight. Nothing's going to change for me, one way or the other. Please don't vote to eliminate a right of some of my friends and business relationships.

Thanks.

As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.

So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?

I didn't want to expand this to a (potentially dragged on) discussion about rights but stick to the specific examples of what the campaigns are doing, but I'll indulge a bit.

The constituency of the state of California has the right to voice what they feel should be in the Constitution of the State of California, including a restrictive definition of marriage. Obviously, this a very old right, much older than the right to marry that gays gained when judges recently interpreted the State Constitution to grant them that right.

Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal. I don't know how to portray this more obviously than to point to the most relevant example that 96% of the States in the US do not allow gay marriage.

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

Ok, so if the US decided to discriminate against YOU in such a way, you wouldn't demand equal treatment? (actually you define it as protection in the US but the meaning is the same).

Basically you're saying that segregation can be re-instituted and it would be no probleme because that is what the law says, discrimination is up to the people of the states?

My understanding is that the Fourteenth Amendment would prevent that from happening in any way that I can readily conceive.

If I do suffer in some way in the future that I perceive to be discrimination, then my recourse would likely be to take it to the courts as the was done to obtain right for gays to marry. At that point it would likely be parties with rights that are in conflict, which is exactly what we have in Prop 8.

Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.

Equal protection, if you like, it's the same thing, only reason i referred to equal treatment is because it's in our constitution, it means the same thing.

So basically, you're not too keen on the constitution? Except when it suits your purposes, i suppose?

I do apologize, you even tried to clarify and I missed it.

When you said Equal Treatment I read it as the ideal of Egalitarianism ... and even missed it when you tried to correct me

Of course I think the Fourteenth Amendment should apply to gays but obviously (as a point of law) it does not right now. The fact that 96% of states do not allow gay marriage should make this plainly obvious.

Perhaps in the future it will. It may require that Prop 8 pass and then the Supreme Court get involved. I don't know when it will happen but hopefully soon. But in the meantime I do not believe that trampling on other peoples' rights is the correct way to go.

Do you understand the concept of tyrrany of the majority and how it may refer to majority rule but not democracy and certainly not a representative democracy such as mine or yours and most definently not according to neither mine nor your constitution?

If you do, then you will realise that equality is the highest form of justice.

You can find it in most texts among the best of men that have ever lived all around the world.

Give me ONE good reason why state should differ between a heterosexual and a homosexual marriage and remember that this is about state and separate is not equal.

One reason and i will concede.

Well put and this reinforces my initial inclination to vote no on Prop 8

The reason you are seeking from me I had described briefly in my arguments in favor of the peoples' right to amend their constitution. But I should clarify, once again. that it is not a view I share with those people.

I am not sure what you are saying that you would concede, anyways. But I think I am in agreement with your main point.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...

I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

The No on 8 ad campaign still runs the soundbite of the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction even though they know it is misleading. What he actually says is that it is not required. While supposedly this is technically true (if in fact it is not a required part of 100% of students' curriculum), this is certainly disengenuous. Nearly all schools include instruction on marriage in their curriculum, usually at a very young age. The No on 8 people obviously know that gay marriage will be taught in schools, as they claim that parents can pull their children out of this instruction. The Yes on 8 people dispute this (that by itself would be a huge debate).

The point is that the No on 8 campaign claims it will not be taught, yet at the same time claim that parents can pull their children out of instruction that isn't happening.

The No on 8 campaign continues to run the ad as well as including the soundbite in other ads because they know it is effective at strongly implying something that will get people to vote no, even though they know is not true.

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.

What, exactly, do you object to about ending discrimination against gays in marriage, and then when teaching children about marriage, teaching them it's two people, including gays?

I understand the policitcal campaign has the bigots looking for something better than discrimination to get yes votes, and they picked the horror of children hearing marriage can include gay people, and that the opponents to the measure ran the ad with the 'required' language you object to and find disengenuous.

But none of that changes the underlying issue you are voting on. See my question above.

You don't vote for slavery because you think the anti-slavery people were disengenuous.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. The people voting on Prop 8 have every right to decide on their childrens' education as well as for their voice to be heard and to vote based on the truth. That's all.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: MH2007

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

just out of curiosity how much is a black man worth to you these days?

Ignoring for a moment that I made a mistake and mistook what John meant by equal treatment, I am still not sure how thinking that equal treatment is an ideal would then mean that I think anyone is less of a person.

I suppose it is a moot point anyways. Obviously I don't believe what you are saying.

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: MH2007

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

just out of curiosity how much is a black man worth to you these days?

Precisely 3/5ths. :roll:

Sorry for the confusion regarding my missing Equal Treatment (UK) == Equal Protection (US)

What you are saying is obviously not something I believe.

 

[tealk]

Agreed....I don't want my 5 year old learning that homosexuality is in any way moral.

Nice post OP.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...

I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

The No on 8 ad campaign still runs the soundbite of the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction even though they know it is misleading. What he actually says is that it is not required. While supposedly this is technically true (if in fact it is not a required part of 100% of students' curriculum), this is certainly disengenuous. Nearly all schools include instruction on marriage in their curriculum, usually at a very young age. The No on 8 people obviously know that gay marriage will be taught in schools, as they claim that parents can pull their children out of this instruction. The Yes on 8 people dispute this (that by itself would be a huge debate).

The point is that the No on 8 campaign claims it will not be taught, yet at the same time claim that parents can pull their children out of instruction that isn't happening.

The No on 8 campaign continues to run the ad as well as including the soundbite in other ads because they know it is effective at strongly implying something that will get people to vote no, even though they know is not true.

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.

What, exactly, do you object to about ending discrimination against gays in marriage, and then when teaching children about marriage, teaching them it's two people, including gays?

I understand the policitcal campaign has the bigots looking for something better than discrimination to get yes votes, and they picked the horror of children hearing marriage can include gay people, and that the opponents to the measure ran the ad with the 'required' language you object to and find disengenuous.

But none of that changes the underlying issue you are voting on. See my question above.

You don't vote for slavery because you think the anti-slavery people were disengenuous.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. The people voting on Prop 8 have every right to decide on their childrens' education as well as for their voice to be heard and to vote based on the truth. That's all.

You say you 'had really intended to vote no on this proposition', but now you aren't sure, and the only reason you give for te change is the 'disengenuous advertising'.

Now you deny that you are suggesting that the proposition should be opposed because of the advertising being disengenuous; you're merely criticizing the advertising.

Which is right?