Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Where Everybody Knows You're Numb -> SunnyliesaBunch -> prop 8 stuff
Post Info TOPIC: prop 8 stuff
My Turn


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 323
Date:
RE: prop 8 stuff
Permalink   

those were cool videos.  

here are two i like.....





this one is not about gay marriage, but about a man who's husband is a soldier in iraq...




__________________


Psych Lit


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

MyCat8it wrote:

 

Have any of you seen these videos?  They're pretty good.





im still trying to view these. im having some sort of flash problem. dang it.

 



 



__________________
MyCat8it


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 225
Date:
Permalink   

Have any of you seen these videos?  They're pretty good.






__________________
Psych Lit


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

 

Gay rights activist calls for march on Washington

Gay Rights activist and founder of the NAMES project, Cleve Jones, announces a national march on Washington D.C. for October of 2009 during a rally at the Utah Pride Festival Sunday, June 7, 2009 in Salt Lake City. The rally announced for next fall is to push congress to enact legislation for gay rights equality. Gay Rights activist and founder of the NAMES project, Cleve Jones, announces a national march on Washington D.C. for October of 2009 during a rally at the Utah Pride Festival Sunday, June 7, 2009 in Salt Lake City. The rally announced for next fall is to push congress to enact legislation for gay rights equality. (AP Photo/Steve C. Wilson)
By Jennifer Dobner
Associated Press Writer / June 7, 2009



i wonder if a female activist were to call for this, would it happen? im interested in the dynamics of why most of our calls to action come from the boys? any ideas?

 



__________________
Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   

Gay rights activist calls for march on Washington

Gay Rights activist and founder of the NAMES project, Cleve Jones, announces a national march on Washington D.C. for October of 2009 during a rally at the Utah Pride Festival Sunday, June 7, 2009 in Salt Lake City. The rally announced for next fall is to push congress to enact legislation for gay rights equality. Gay Rights activist and founder of the NAMES project, Cleve Jones, announces a national march on Washington D.C. for October of 2009 during a rally at the Utah Pride Festival Sunday, June 7, 2009 in Salt Lake City. The rally announced for next fall is to push congress to enact legislation for gay rights equality. (AP Photo/Steve C. Wilson)
By Jennifer Dobner
Associated Press Writer / June 7, 2009

SALT LAKE CITYAn activist who worked alongside slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk announced plans Sunday for a march on Washington this fall to demand that Congress establish equality and marriage rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Cleve Jones said the march planned for Oct. 11 will coincide with National Coming Out Day and launch a new chapter in the gay rights movement. He made the announcement during a rally at the annual Utah Pride Festival.

"We seek nothing more and nothing less than equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states," Jones said.

He stirred up a crowd of thousands just blocks from the Salt Lake City headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, part of a conservative coalition that worked last fall to pass California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling legalizing gay marriage.

"I've got a message for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," Jones shouted. "I've got two words from California ... I've got two words for the prophet ... Thank you. Thank you for uniting us. Thank you for galvanizing us."

Mormons were among the campaign's most vigorous volunteers and financial contributors, giving tens of millions of dollars to back Proposition 8, which Jones said has helped awaken and unite the gay rights movement in all 50 states.

Like many faiths, Mormons hold traditional marriage as a sacred institution. The church has been active in fighting marriage equality legislation across the U.S. since the 1990s and, in 2006, joined other faiths in asking Congress for a marriage amendment to the Constitution.

Gay marriage is legal in six states. A handful of others allow civil unions for same-sex couples and about 40 either bar the recognition of same-sex marriage or have explicitly defined marriage -- through legislation or constitutional amendments -- as between a man and a woman.

Jones was a protege of Milk, San Francisco's first openly gay elected official, who was shot and killed by a fellow member of the Board of Supervisors in 1978. In the mid-80s Jones founded the NAMES Project, the AIDS memorial quilt that recognizes the more than 80,000 Americans who have died from HIV/AIDS.

In an interview Friday, he said a confluence of events -- a new president, the success of the movie "Milk" and Proposition 8 -- makes this the right time to intensify the fight for equality.

Since November, Jones said he has received hundreds of e-mails from Latter-day Saints who apologized and said they were uncomfortable or ashamed by the faith's fight against Proposition 8.

"It's unfortunate that a church and a people who experienced persecution in the past could not come to some accommodation that would allow them to maintain their faith without so vociferously seeking to deny other people their rights," Jones said.dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All


__________________
Psych Lit


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Yeah, I can see the "Protection of Marriage" advocates coming out of the WOODWORK, screaming their heads off if that were to be attempted.

 



oh i am sure that they would and its certainly one way to have them "get it" or at least confront their own feelings of homophobia. im hearing this morning that obama will be visited by protesters today due to his his silence on this and other glbt topics. im thinking of what the minister in that link you posted yesterday said "its never the wrong time to do the right thing" and thinking of what a great slogan this might make for those protests.




 



__________________
Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   

Psych Lit wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

Ok, ever the optimist. MY take on the song title is, he weighs a shytload, his thoughts are antiquated and full of hatred and I am SICK of carrying my Brothers (and sisters) hatred and allowing them to regulate selective equality and to pick and choose civil rights. But, eh. For the moment, it's just a song. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Beatles "Revolution" and I am not a Bealtes fan. (duck)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2LKMogdjm8 < Revolution

 

im usually always up for a revolution since patience is not one of my virtues but what seems to be working is logic and fairness tho not in this instance its convinced old maine farmers and middle americans in iowa the rest will probably happen in the next few years. however the impatient person in me thinks that trying to go beyond reason such as trying to get a bill passed that strips hets of their benefits might move the dial a bit faster. the problem with that is that it might cause some sort of backlash and the progress made might be lost. hard to say.

 


Yeah, I can see the "Protection of Marriage" advocates coming out of the WOODWORK, screaming their heads off if that were to be attempted.

 



 



__________________
Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   

Psych Lit wrote:

 

i think the key words there are constitutionally based which is i suspect different than the other benefit based differences that exist with respect to the cali state constitution. in my thinking this leaves the door open for the state law to be challenged on the basis of what youve said below. perhaps then if the us supreme court decides that state laws cannot be held valid if they deny civil rights to one group of people and not another all similar laws will fall. i think the leaving the previous marriages intact was another federal inroad for this argument too. i dont know if thier intent was to set this up for a us sc argument or not but i think they did a fine job of doing so anyway.


:)


Agreed. I think what will eventually happen (what will HAVE to happen) is that this will end up in front of the Supreme Court, and they'll have to rule that the California constitution is in violation of the US Constitution. I'm ... not inclined to "rush this along" any time soon, given the present composition of the SCOTUS.



-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Wednesday 27th of May 2009 10:35:33 AM

__________________
Psych Lit


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

boxdog1031 wrote:

Ok, ever the optimist. MY take on the song title is, he weighs a shytload, his thoughts are antiquated and full of hatred and I am SICK of carrying my Brothers (and sisters) hatred and allowing them to regulate selective equality and to pick and choose civil rights. But, eh. For the moment, it's just a song. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Beatles "Revolution" and I am not a Bealtes fan. (duck)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2LKMogdjm8 < Revolution

 

im usually always up for a revolution since patience is not one of my virtues but what seems to be working is logic and fairness tho not in this instance its convinced old maine farmers and middle americans in iowa the rest will probably happen in the next few years. however the impatient person in me thinks that trying to go beyond reason such as trying to get a bill passed that strips hets of their benefits might move the dial a bit faster. the problem with that is that it might cause some sort of backlash and the progress made might be lost. hard to say.

 



 



__________________
Psych Lit


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

 

Okay, now that we (may) have our wind back, let's review. Really, it may not be as "bad" as if intitially appears.

What the court was asked to decide was whether or not Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA constitution, or a revision. The petitioners argued that it was a revision, but the court found that it was a valid amendment. That's "it." This wasn't a ruling on "same-sex marriage" except indirectly. This was a ruling on the one argument that Prop 9 was a constitutional revision, and the court (reasonably, I think) found that it was not. Okayfine.

Here is a section of the ruling I find particularly interesting:


Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couples state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to choose ones 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

i think the key words there are constitutionally based which is i suspect different than the other benefit based differences that exist with respect to the cali state constitution. in my thinking this leaves the door open for the state law to be challenged on the basis of what youve said below. perhaps then if the us supreme court decides that state laws cannot be held valid if they deny civil rights to one group of people and not another all similar laws will fall. i think the leaving the previous marriages intact was another federal inroad for this argument too. i dont know if thier intent was to set this up for a us sc argument or not but i think they did a fine job of doing so anyway.



Sound familiar? It is: Plessy v. Ferguson -- "separate but equal." The court has affirmed the right of same-sex couples to enjoy all the benefits of marriage, but as with segregation, implementation of that guarantee is dubious. To me, at least, the next step is clear, and frankly, I'm counting on it not taking over 50 years to set right this wrong.



-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 26th of May 2009 09:22:05 PM

 



 



__________________
Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   

boxdog1031 wrote:

Ok, ever the optimist.
<shrug> When has pessimism ever won a war? :)

 



__________________
boxdog1031


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 77
Date:
Permalink   

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:


Keep the faith, sisters (and brothers.)

For us, this night. wink


.



-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 26th of May 2009 10:09:02 PM


Ok, ever the optimist. MY take on the song title is, he weighs a shytload, his thoughts are antiquated and full of hatred and I am SICK of carrying my Brothers (and sisters) hatred and allowing them to regulate selective equality and to pick and choose civil rights. But, eh. For the moment, it's just a song. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Beatles "Revolution" and I am not a Bealtes fan. (duck)

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2LKMogdjm8 < Revolution



__________________
Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   


Keep the faith, sisters (and brothers.)

For us, this night. wink


.



-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 26th of May 2009 10:09:02 PM

__________________
Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   

Okay, now that we (may) have our wind back, let's review. Really, it may not be as "bad" as if intitially appears.

What the court was asked to decide was whether or not Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA constitution, or a revision. The petitioners argued that it was a revision, but the court found that it was a valid amendment. That's "it." This wasn't a ruling on "same-sex marriage" except indirectly. This was a ruling on the one argument that Prop 9 was a constitutional revision, and the court (reasonably, I think) found that it was not. Okayfine.

Here is a section of the ruling I find particularly interesting:


Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couples state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to choose ones 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

Sound familiar? It is: Plessy v. Ferguson -- "separate but equal." The court has affirmed the right of same-sex couples to enjoy all the benefits of marriage, but as with segregation, implementation of that guarantee is dubious. To me, at least, the next step is clear, and frankly, I'm counting on it not taking over 50 years to set right this wrong.



-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 26th of May 2009 09:22:05 PM

__________________
My Turn


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 323
Date:
Permalink   

California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: May 26, 2009

The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriagetoday, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the courts decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized.

Todays 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 ones 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.

Heated reaction to the decision began immediately, with protestors blocking traffic in front of San Francisco City Hall, their hands locked.

The same court had ruled in May that same-sex couples enjoyed the same fundamental right to marry as heterosexual couples. That sweeping 4-3 decision provoked a backlash from opponents that led to Proposition 8, which garnered 52 percent of the vote last November after a bitter electoral fight.

The opinion marks a new round in the long-running battle in California over the issue, and will almost certainly lead to a counter-initiative intended to overturn Proposition 8, which changed the state constitution, as early as next year.

The opinion focused on whether the use of a voter initiative to narrow constitutional rights under Proposition 8 went too far.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, who filed several suits challenging the proposition, argued that the change to the states constitution was so fundamental that the initiative was not an amendment to the constitution but a revision, a term for measures that rework core constitutional principles.

Revisions, under California law, cannot be decided through a simple signature drive and majority vote, which is what led to Proposition 8; they can only be placed on the ballot with a two-thirds vote by the legislature.

It has historically been rare, however, for the states courts to overturn initiatives on the ground that they are actually revisions, and many legal scholars deemed the challenge against Proposition 8 a long shot.

The question of whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or revision was the centerpiece of the oral arguments before the State Supreme Court during its hearing on March 5.

The justices who had issued the ringing support of same-sex marriage in 2008 presented a far less supportive front during the three-hour hearing. A number of justices who had voted in the majority in the 2008 case, particularly Joyce L. Kennard, strongly suggested in their questions from the bench that they were reluctant to overturn the will of the voters or to undercut the initiative process.

The justices had seemed to be seeking a middle ground that would allow the rights they had affirmed the year before to be preserved in the form of civil unions, which would be different from marriage in name only. Justice Kennard suggested that the substantive rights of gays were the same after the proposition, and all that had changed was the label of marriage.

That distinction was deeply dissatisfying to an attorney for plaintiffs, Shannon Minter, who argued that without the right to the word marriage, same-sex couples would find our outsider status enshrined in our Constitution.

In the months since the case was argued, three other states have legalized same-sex marriage. On April 3, Iowas supreme court struck down a state statute that limited civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman and cited Californias 2008 decision repeatedly in support of its ruling. Less than a week later, the Vermont Legislature narrowly overrode a veto by Gov. Jim Douglas of a bill that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Then on May 6, Maines legislature, too, passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and Gov. John Baldaci signed it.

Initiatives are also moving forward in New York and New Jersey; a similar measure has stalled in the New Hampshire legislature by a slim margin this month, but could come up for a new vote next month.

At the same time, attitudes of Americans toward same-sex marriage favor liberalization of the practice. In an April CBS/New York Times poll, 42 percent of those surveyed favored same-sex marriage, up from 21 percent at election time in 2004, when it was a wedge issue during the presidential campaign. That poll suggests the trend will continue into the future: 57 percent of the respondents favored legal recognition for same-sex marriage, compared with 31 percent of respondents over the age of 40.

The language of Chief Justice Georges decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Instead, he wrote, our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.



__________________


Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   

Don't know what time the ruling is going to be made. Tried to find out, and stumbled upon an article, which had, I think, what should be dubbed "quote of the day" at least, if not more:

"...One couple who will be anxiously awaiting the ruling are Karen Strauss and Ruth Borenstein, the lead plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8.
The two women, partners for 17 years, had wanted to marry in the presence of their parents, who live in Florida. But Strauss' 84-year-old mother is dying of cancer, and they now realize she won't live long enough to attend their dream wedding no matter what.

"People who don't know us, who have nothing to lose by our decisions, had the opportunity to decide for us this most private and personal decision," said Strauss, 51, who will be across the country at her mother's bedside when the decision comes down. "That is a personally painful position to be in, whichever way it goes."

------------
ain't that the truth...


__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Where Everybody Knows You're Numb -> SunnyliesaBunch -> prop 8 stuff


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard