« Previous 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 Next »

This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#452 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 07 2010 at 7:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Does that mean everything will go back to normal? Or am I reading this wrong?

#453 Aug 07 2010 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good

Worst. Title. Ever!

17,302 posts

Almalieque wrote:

catwho wrote:

Here's something interesting:

A legal wonk has pointed out that because the lawsuit was brought against the state of CA, but the state itself declined to defend it, an intermediary third party opted to defend on behalf of the state (with the state's permission, but not blessing. Sort of an, "okay *shrug*, it's your money.") In case law, it has been previously determined that while a third party is more than welcome to defend on behalf of the state, they may not necessarily have the authority to appeal on behalf of the state. Since the state of CA has little interest in the appeal - both the governor and the AG are against it - then it's quite possible that the appeal of the ruling won't even be legally valid, and Prop 8 proponents will have to start a completely new lawsuit against the state for permitting the marriages.

Does that mean everything will go back to normal? Or am I reading this wrong?

I think it means that if they want to make gay marriage illegal again, that they'd have to bring a lawsuit against the state.

Of course... who knows if it's true or not.

____________________________

Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

#454 Aug 07 2010 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Huh. I knew that someone else had to press the case forward because State of California had no interest in it but didn't know that it could potentially affect the appeals process. That's interesting.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#455 Aug 08 2010 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent

Omegavegeta

View User Forum

Sage

8,236 posts

Screenshot

I may have re-upped premium solely to post this.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

#456 Aug 08 2010 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591956210826

Sage

886 posts

As a gay man, I normally am uninterested in lesbians kissing, but in this case, I will make an exception.

Best. Picture. EVER.

#457 Aug 09 2010 at 9:54 AM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Just became my Desktop background...

Edited, Aug 9th 2010 5:54pm by Almalieque

#458 Aug 10 2010 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1592275581834

Scholar

792 posts

Meh. I support equal rights and the ability for homosexual people to be married.

But regardless of your stance on this issue, let's face it: every two to four years, the same proposition will be flown up the flagpole, and no matter which way it goes, it'll be struck down and reinstated a million times. It's just the way things go in California - trust me, I've lived here a long time. The system for putting measures on the ballot is a total joke; stuff gets overturned all the time for stupid reasons. No progress will be made until we fix the strength of ballot measures.

#459 Aug 10 2010 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1681085903309

View User Forum

Scholar

21,720 posts

Speedly wrote:

let's face it: every two to four years, the same proposition will be flown up the flagpole, and no matter which way it goes, it'll be struck down and reinstated a million times.

Until of course the supreme court makes a ruling and everybody shuts the **** up about it.

#460 Aug 10 2010 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent

Repressed Memories

21,027 posts

BrownDuck wrote:

Until of course the supreme court makes a ruling and everybody shuts the @#%^ up about it.

Like how everyone shut up about race and women's issues?

#461 Aug 10 2010 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

Allegory wrote:

BrownDuck wrote:

Until of course the supreme court makes a ruling and everybody shuts the @#%^ up about it.

Like how everyone shut up about race and women's issues?

They've gotten less and less pronounced every year since rulings were made, so yes.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

#462 Aug 10 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent

Repressed Memories

21,027 posts

Well yes, the point being that it doesn't "shut people up" so much as it "gradually diminishes in prevalence over an extended period of time."

Edited, Aug 10th 2010 6:16pm by Allegory

#463 Aug 10 2010 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591956210826

Sage

886 posts

So would that mean the Supreme court is a DoT job? ;P

#464 gbaji, Posted: Aug 10 2010 at 6:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) None at all. As long as we're talking about the social relationship and/or civil contract aspects, I have no problem at all. I've said this hundreds of times. It's not about legalizing gay marriage, but about "subsidizing" gay marriage.

#465 Aug 10 2010 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

This thread (and all others) have gone on far too long for me to remember or even go back and search for it...but why don't you want gay couples to receive the same benefits?

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#466 Aug 10 2010 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

Debalic wrote:

This thread (and all others) have gone on far too long for me to remember or even go back and search for it...but why don't you want gay couples to receive the same benefits?

because us ****** cant accidentally get knocked up

Therefore we don't deserve the "insurance" that marriage gives

or something

#467 gbaji, Posted: Aug 10 2010 at 6:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Because the benefits exist specifically to encourage heterosexual couples to marry. There's a very very long history of societies (and their governments) having some interest in encouraging heterosexual couples to marry, usually involving harsh punishments for adultry, social condemnation of ******* children, strong social rules, arranged marriages, to franchise only granted to married citizens, entry to social groups granted upon same, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable or even strange to assume that our modern benefits exist for the much the same reason.

#468 gbaji, Posted: Aug 10 2010 at 6:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's not about deserving. It's about the states interest in you getting married. If you can't get knocked up accidentally, then the state doesn't care if you are married or not while bumping uglies. But if you *can* get knocked up accidentally, then it does.

#469 Aug 10 2010 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

gbaji wrote:

Lady Bardalicious wrote:

Debalic wrote:

This thread (and all others) have gone on far too long for me to remember or even go back and search for it...but why don't you want gay couples to receive the same benefits?

because us ****** cant accidentally get knocked up

Therefore we don't deserve the "insurance" that marriage gives

It's not about deserving. It's about the states interest in you getting married. If you can't get knocked up accidentally, then the state doesn't care if you are married or not while bumping uglies. But if you *can* get knocked up accidentally, then it does.

It's really not that hard of a concept to understand.

It's not hard to understand, it is hard to accept because it is stupid.

You are basically rewarding people for being a stupid blight and punishing people who aren't a risk.

#470 Aug 10 2010 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Lady Bardalicious wrote:

You are basically rewarding people for being a stupid blight and punishing people who aren't a risk.

I think you may have just hit upon an uncomfortable truthy truth right there.

Personnaly I think if GLBT's want to get their marriages recognized by the state so that they can be equal in the eyes of the law for tax/inheritance/hospital visitation rights or whatever other similar purposes then all power to them. But I also agree with gbaji (zoiks!)* that government allowances and benefits being given out just because people get married should be discontinued. For everyone. (Child benefits are a different subject).

*Tho' I say I agree with Gbaji in this, I do in fact hold a serious suspicion that that reasoning is used in public by those opposed to 'gay marriage', when in fact what they really object to is people of the same gender fUcking.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#471 Aug 10 2010 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1630282721753

View User Forum

Sage

14,174 posts

paulsol wrote:

Lady Bardalicious wrote:

You are basically rewarding people for being a stupid blight and punishing people who aren't a risk.

I think you may have just hit upon an uncomfortable truthy truth right there.

Personnaly I think if GLBT's want to get their marriages recognized by the state so that they can be equal in the eyes of the law for tax/inheritance/hospital visitation rights or whatever other similar purposes then all power to them. But I also agree with gbaji (zoiks!)* that government allowances and benefits being given out just because people get married should be discontinued. For everyone. (Child benefits are a different subject).

*Tho' I say I agree with Gbaji in this, I do in fact hold a serious suspicion that that reasoning is used in public by those opposed to 'gay marriage', when in fact what they really object to is people of the same gender fUcking.

Unless they're women doing it for the purposes of titillating a nearby man, of course. Then it's coo'.

#472 Aug 10 2010 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:

Unless they're women doing it for the purposes of titillating a nearby man, of course. Then it's coo'.

Obviously. D'uh.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#473 Aug 10 2010 at 7:21 PM Rating: Decent

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

paulsol wrote:

Lady Bardalicious wrote:

You are basically rewarding people for being a stupid blight and punishing people who aren't a risk.

I think you may have just hit upon an uncomfortable truthy truth right there.

Personnaly I think if GLBT's want to get their marriages recognized by the state so that they can be equal in the eyes of the law for tax/inheritance/hospital visitation rights or whatever other similar purposes then all power to them. But I also agree with gbaji (zoiks!)* that government allowances and benefits being given out just because people get married should be discontinued. For everyone. (Child benefits are a different subject).

*Tho' I say I agree with Gbaji in this, I do in fact hold a serious suspicion that that reasoning is used in public by those opposed to 'gay marriage', when in fact what they really object to is people of the same gender fUcking.

This is actually close to what I was thinking, but couldn't state in any coherent manner. The financial benefits should be stripped from marriage and applied instead to parenthood. In my idealistic world, however, parenthood would include adopting/surrogate homosexual couples as well as breeders.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#474 Aug 10 2010 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Debalic wrote:

In my idealistic world, however, parenthood would include adopting/surrogate homosexual couples as well as breeders.

Of course. Fairness means the same for all.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#475 Aug 10 2010 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

paulsol wrote:

Debalic wrote:

In my idealistic world, however, parenthood would include adopting/surrogate homosexual couples as well as breeders.

Of course. Fairness means the same for all.

Well, I just had to add that because gbaji will ignore or oppose that condition.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#476 Aug 10 2010 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1716164190383

View User Forum

Sage

19,999 posts

Debalic wrote:

This is actually close to what I was thinking, but couldn't state in any coherent manner. The financial benefits should be stripped from marriage and applied instead to parenthood. In my idealistic world, however, parenthood would include adopting/surrogate homosexual couples as well as breeders.

Back on page 7 wrote:

gbaji wrote:

bsphil wrote:

gbaji wrote:

bsphil wrote:

Why does that matter that people can't inseminate themselves, accidental or not? What the f*ck were you even getting at by specifying that it happen "accidentally"? Why do adopted children or children from surrogate mothers not count as children when it comes to the "needing to be raised" question?

Because we're discussing the objective behind the creation of a set of benefits for couples who marry, not whether or not we should also have programs to help people who are raising children.

So benefits are only for creating children but not raising them?

If they were just about raising children, we'd provide them to everyone who had children and not tie them to the choice to bind yourself to the other person with a marriage contract. It's not about rewarding people who have children, or even helping people to raise children. It's about encouraging them to produce those children in an environment least likely to result in additional burden on the rest of us.

And that last sentence is where things go entirely wrong.

We should be encouraging that the children be raised in such an environment, regardless of the circumstances of their creation.

(tl;dr: This is what I've been saying this whole thread, aside from that little aside into semantics of bad questions with Alma.)

« Previous 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 Next »

This thread is locked

You cannot post in a locked topic!

Recent Visitors: 204 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (204)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC