Obama Won!!!

[Lady Alias]

Do y'all think that maybe a significant percentage of the gay population voted yes? I mean, I definitely know a number of gay men in particular who were uncomfortable about having to consider the idea and California does already extend things like health insurance. I realize that the majority of people who voted yes must be pig ignorant people, but I wonder how people directly impacted voted from the privacy of the voting booth.

No, I don't.

Why were your friends uncomfortable?

[Amelia G]

No, I don't.

Why were your friends uncomfortable?

Some were quoting the John Waters routine about the best thing about being a gay man is not having to get married. Some are in very long term relationships where they are happy and were, I think, maybe just uneasy about rocking a boat they were happy in. A few tend to date hot young guys with less dough than they have and their concerns were probably the same ones a straight man dating hot young girls would have. Some people just enjoy being single and the regular thrill of the chase. Then again, the majority of the people I know are not married, whatever their sexual orientation is and that is probably relevant.

[Lady Alias]

Some were quoting the John Waters routine about the best thing about being a gay man is not having to get married. Some are in very long term relationships where they are happy and were, I think, maybe just uneasy about rocking a boat they were happy in. A few tend to date hot young guys with less dough than they have and their concerns were probably the same ones a straight man dating hot young girls would have. Some people just enjoy being single and the regular thrill of the chase. Then again, the majority of the people I know are not married, whatever their sexual orientation is and that is probably relevant.

It wasn't an obligatory marriage sentence. It's about the option. It's about knowing you have the same rights as the person next to you, and not being in a "separate, but equal" category.

[One Eyed Cat]

8 passed, but you did get the office you cant win them all.... there will be another day or time for that... It isnt all doom and gloom on my side of political spec. We held on to some of senate seats, and stopped a super majority from happening. Keeping some what Obama in check.....

OEC at this point it is out of all our control... May the chips fall where they may... I am done with politics for now....

Yeah no doubt. I'm back to the usual. Feel pretty relaxed.

[Amelia G]

It wasn't an obligatory marriage sentence. It's about the option. It's about knowing you have the same rights as the person next to you, and not being in a "separate, but equal" category.

I know that. I voted NO. I would have voted NO repeatedly, if it were permitted.

It just seems freakish, with the makeup of California's population, that YES won. I do not think the fundies have the majority here, so I'm trying to think of some other explanation.

It is true that a lot of straight people hate marriage and wish it were not an option, so I guess it is possible that goes beyond orientation. I do know kind of a lot of gay men who joked about being down on it or who expressed concern when it first became legal (prior to Prop 8), so I'm wondering if politics here didn't make extremely -- please excuse the expression -- strange bedfellows.

[One Eyed Cat]

Do y'all think that maybe a significant percentage of the gay population voted yes? I mean, I definitely know a number of gay men in particular who were uncomfortable about having to consider the idea and California does already extend things like health insurance. I realize that the majority of people who voted yes must be pig ignorant people, but I wonder how people directly impacted voted from the privacy of the voting booth.

It's entirely possible. I have gay friends that feel silly about it. Once it's out there though, ugh. You just have to hope you win.

OEC

[Lady Alias]

That's just really weird. I don't know a soul like that.

[Ubiquitress]

i am just sad that my aunts who were married in the window and then sent a letter telling them that they were no longer legally married have to deal with it all over again.Its sad to those who do believe in the tradition but are drawn to perhaps an untraditional sex, it doesnt change their love one iota,but I know that they must be feeling absolutely insulted and furious. I suppose the only thing they can take heart in is that the gov. cannot keep them from loving each other as they have for 25 years,but god forbid they should try and be traditional at all.sorry I am ranting its just pure poop thats all..pure outrageous poop

[Lady Alias]

It is indeed pure outrageous poop.

[Amelia G]

i am just sad that my aunts who were married in the window and then sent a letter telling them that they were no longer legally married have to deal with it all over again.Its sad to those who do believe in the tradition but are drawn to perhaps an untraditional sex, it doesnt change their love one iota,but I know that they must be feeling absolutely insulted and furious. I suppose the only thing they can take heart in is that the gov. cannot keep them from loving each other as they have for 25 years,but god forbid they should try and be traditional at all.sorry I am ranting its just pure poop thats all..pure outrageous poop

The whole thing is just ridiculous. I think that anyone should be allowed to sign a contract pooling their possessions or including will provisions or power of attorney or whatever else they please. So I don't think we need the government's sanction for so-called civil unions because I think those should be fine in the existing law. I think every individual should be able to choose who they want to visit them in the hospital and who they want to give (or not give) the power to pull the plug. Our health insurance system is totally messed up and I don't understand or approve of the way we, as a society, have permitted employers to be all up in it and decide which of our relationships they will acknowledge and support and which they will not. And I frankly think it is none of the government's business if a legally joined couple considers their union a marriage or a hand-fasting or an offering to Pagan deities.

Much sympathy to your aunts. That really really sucks.

[Amelia G]

That's just really weird. I don't know a soul like that.

You don't know anyone who is anti-marriage?

[Raza]

So don't fight for what's right due to the possibility of this happening? Noone knew then it would come to this. I'd rather fight for my beliefs and lose personally. I'm at peace with it. Out of my control.

I'm not saying you shouldn't stand up for your ideals; just that it's generally both futile and somewhat rude to try and do so in a way that inflicts them on people that don't support them. Involuntary representative democracy was a horrible idea, and although the means it pretends to offer to the realisation of our social values is tempting for being well-established and recognised, it is both immensely (and deliberately) difficult to succeed through and meaningless and ineffectual if you do.

Points like these should be adressed on a personal level. If you feel that you're denied a right that you should have, take it. If you're persecuted, stand up to it. If your symbols aren't being formally recognised, use them anyway, and through popularity leave the formalities outdated and beside-the-point. The system is a smokescreen; power lies with people, and all you need to do is use it.

[Lady Alias]

You don't know anyone who is anti-marriage?

Yes, I actually am. But I still want the option available for me. I would never vote against it just because I personally wouldn't want to get married, because it just doesn't affect me, but everyone else. By voting against it, I'm taking it away from another couple that would like to in fact have that right. It's really selfish.

[mystoo]

i am just sad that my aunts who were married in the window and then sent a letter telling them that they were no longer legally married

Back up....the gov't unmarried them? That is seriously screwed up. And sucky!

[a_small_death]

ACLU and other groups now are going to take this court. I think now it's mute point given this will not be given it's fair shot in court.

[Lady Alias]

It's also not affecting every orientation. I could see if it was a ban for all marriage...but it isn't. Even then, I wouldn't vote for it, because I wouldn't want to take that away from others, despite the fact I don't want to exercise such a right myself.

[Amelia G]

Yes, I actually am. But I still want the option available for me. I would never vote against it just because I personally wouldn't want to get married, because it just doesn't affect me, but everyone else. By voting against it, I'm taking it away from another couple that would like to in fact have that right. It's really selfish.

I agree with you 100%. It's completely selfish, bordering on bizarre, for anyone of any orientation to have voted YES on this despicable measure.

However, I'm contemplating the situation for someone who, for example, is against marriage but has a partner who wants to get married. For a straight couple, that usually means they break up. So long as a gay couple can't get married, there is no real pressure. If marriage becomes an option, then the heat is on.

[Lady Alias]

Alright, I see the situation you mean.

(Though, that's more of a personal-relationship problem that's using a legal problem as a crutch.)

[Mr Karl]

Antichrist has risen

I still have bad feeling about Obama. Don't know why but there's something odd about him. .

isn't there though?...................oh well, kay surrah, surrah


I suppose it's about time again for a lot of people got freakishly intense about some political figure.............one of those cycle things I suppose

[OliX]

What's kay surrah?

[Ajax Knucklebones]

What's kay surrah?

Whatever will be, will be. At least that's how the song goes....

[OliX]

Thanx for enlightening me. Appreciated.

About Obama, it's too good to be true. That's how I actually feel about him.

[Morning Glory]

The system is a smokescreen; power lies with people, and all you need to do is use it.

how are you supposed to engage on a personal level in activities that by definition are part of a group collaboration, such as getting married?

sure anyone can say "hey, I'm married!". that doesn't mean anything. the reason that people want to do it in a way that is legally binding is so that they can receive (what they perceive as) the benefits of the "system" by being a part of it.

your sovereign rights only extend far enough to actualize them, which is usually contingent on other people recognizing them and complying with it.

[Vexbeast]

sure anyone can say "hey, I'm married!". that doesn't mean anything. the reason that people want to do it in a way that is legally binding is so that they can receive (what they perceive as) the benefits of the "system" by being a part of it.

The point he was making was if you want to change something socially, you can't rely on the legal system to make a difference because shit like this keeps happening.

If gay people were to stop saying "I want to be married, but the fundies deny it so I just have to deal with it." and started saying, "I'm married, deal with it." Then the concept of gay marriage would likely be more widely accepted, and for the people who still give a crap, there's more chance legal bullshit like this won't happen.

Back up....the gov't unmarried them? That is seriously screwed up. And sucky!

Agreed. That's complete bull right there...

If any of them were there on a fiance visa they'll probably get fined and shipped back home too.

I really hope they're not dumb enough to go that far.

[One Eyed Cat]

I'm not saying you shouldn't stand up for your ideals; just that it's generally both futile and somewhat rude to try and do so in a way that inflicts them on people that don't support them. Involuntary representative democracy was a horrible idea, and although the means it pretends to offer to the realisation of our social values is tempting for being well-established and recognised, it is both immensely (and deliberately) difficult to succeed through and meaningless and ineffectual if you do.

Points like these should be adressed on a personal level. If you feel that you're denied a right that you should have, take it. If you're persecuted, stand up to it. If your symbols aren't being formally recognised, use them anyway, and through popularity leave the formalities outdated and beside-the-point. The system is a smokescreen; power lies with people, and all you need to do is use it.

I can't address the inability of people to enter into certain contractual agreements on a personal level. Would you consider the civil rights movement as "rude"? They were after all seeking legal recourse for segregation. Thus, they were "inflicting" their beliefs on those who supported the status quo of the time. I would take it you would also have found the women's suffrage movement "rude". Both were futile movements, until they weren't. In time, the same will be true of this. Gay folk didn't put this to a vote. Anti-gay folk did to negate a court decision. The time will come when that 48% is 52% and the ban is struck down on a future ballot.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I agree with you 100%. It's completely selfish, bordering on bizarre, for anyone of any orientation to have voted YES on this despicable measure.

However, I'm contemplating the situation for someone who, for example, is against marriage but has a partner who wants to get married. For a straight couple, that usually means they break up. So long as a gay couple can't get married, there is no real pressure. If marriage becomes an option, then the heat is on.

My personal opinion: There should be a wider range of options of contractual choices for everyone. Repeal DOMA and drop the gender difference necessity. Recognize the new contractual agreements on a federal and state level. The word "marriage" could be one of many. From there, we could come up with a wider range of arrangements. Gay folk can actually patchwork some of the usual rights and obligations even without the current California domestic partnership law, it is just generally very costly and tedious to do so.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

The point he was making was if you want to change something socially, you can't rely on the legal system to make a difference

The point I was making is that the social change that is being sought out is precisely for the legal system to make a difference. If you omit that it negates the entire aim.

Essential the argument here is that if you can't do what you want, then do something different; which is counterproductive to the idea of bringing about a social change at all.

stop saying "I want to be married... and started saying, "I'm married, deal with it."

As I said, that would be pointless. I could say "I am now the president of the united states." it doesn't mean anything without the legal system backing it up. What people want is not just a pointless title, but the concessions granted by society via the legal process that it entails, mainly dealing with financial and information sharing. And those things can't be acquired merely because you say so because they are part of a network of people doing things, not just you.

to make a long term commitment to someone is a personal choice. the civil institution of marriage is a legal process, and it requires legislation to be effected upon people.

[Morning Glory]

So we need to legalize gay marriage.

[Vexbeast]

You seem to be missing the point entirely. -_____-


And by missing, I mean ignoring.































And by entirely, I mean purposefully.

[DoctorZ]

And by "seem to be", you mean "are", right?

[Ubiquitress]

Back up....the gov't unmarried them? That is seriously screwed up. And sucky!

they were sent a letter that nullified their nuptials it was as if someone had divorced them without asking.in my opinion that is a worse blow to the tradition of marriage than same sex couples.it is more undermining to the " word" to reverse it over politics

[Raza]

how are you supposed to engage on a personal level in activities that by definition are part of a group collaboration, such as getting married?

The only 'group' that is by definition part of a marriage is you and your partner. I'm sure you can manage to adress them on a personal level, without characterising what you mean to eachother by the way it's drawn in the record books of feigned national unity.

sure anyone can say "hey, I'm married!". that doesn't mean anything. the reason that people want to do it in a way that is legally binding is so that they can receive (what they perceive as) the benefits of the "system" by being a part of it.

Some people want to marry for practical benefits, some people want to marry as a symbolic expression of love. In the case of this discussion though, the first group is irrelevant, as this is about homosexual couples that can apparently gain all the benefits but don't get to call it marriage.

For the purpose of this discussion, marriage is a symbol, as is the act of declaring it over your relationship. Symbols are given power by people. Alone, a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people - with the recognition of those actually involved, personally, with your lover and yourself, even if its just the two of you - well, who else do you need to change your world?

*snicker* If only I'd posted this yesterday, it would have been so perfect.

your sovereign rights only extend far enough to actualize them, which is usually contingent on other people recognizing them and complying with it.

True, yet for the most part, my life and the things I value in it do not require external validation to be real and appreciable; personal sovereignity is a practical reality far more fundamentally than it is a 'right'. Far more than to the individual, what you said applies to governmental authority - and what's left of them when you apply the 'not recognising and complying' part?

They don't have anything else.

[Raza]

I can't address the inability of people to enter into certain contractual agreements on a personal level. Would you consider the civil rights movement as "rude"? They were after all seeking legal recourse for segregation. Thus, they were "inflicting" their beliefs on those who supported the status quo of the time. I would take it you would also have found the women's suffrage movement "rude". Both were futile movements, until they weren't. In time, the same will be true of this. Gay folk didn't put this to a vote. Anti-gay folk did to negate a court decision. The time will come when that 48% is 52% and the ban is struck down on a future ballot.

OEC

Why certainly they were rude, but they were dragged barely voluntarily into that metaphorical shouting contest by the established order. Rudeness under such conditions is easily forgiven.

My point is about the entire channel of government and representative democracy. I'm by no means saying that all specific causes pushed through it necessarily lack merit; just that it's the wrong approach, and that the roadblock you hit here is an example of that. I'm not condemning your efforts; this is a debate on the greater of two goods.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

The thing is, marriage is not an expression of love. It is a contract that allows for the distribution of property, the allowance of certain responsibilities in regards to your partner, certain rights regarding children ect.

All of the personal sovereignty will not protect a gay partner surviving the loss of a partner in a custody battle with uncle frank who thinks queers can't raise kids. A married surviving partner would have little trouble taking custody of the kid unless uncle frank could prove there was abuse, negligence or what have you.

I have not read prop 8 as closely as I could have, does anyone know if it prevents a civil union? The next step, even while this is working through the courts is to push that and expand the rights of civil unions. The you have a reasonable separate but equal case to tear the amendment apart with.

At least thats my take.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Thanx for enlightening me. Appreciated.

About Obama, it's too good to be true. That's how I actually feel about him.

I do not think Obama is too good. I think we have just sat in shit for so long that the smell of less shit makes us think we are in a field of fragrant strawberries. Once our perspective readjusts the fear should leave you.

[Raza]

The thing is, marriage is not an expression of love. It is a contract that allows for the distribution of property, the allowance of certain responsibilities in regards to your partner, certain rights regarding children ect

Marriage is a means for whatever purpose you attempt to use it towards. Neither are exclusive truths.

And as I understand it from this very thread, prop 8 doesn't rule out civil unions, so one of these purposes is a bit less relevant than the other.

[jonny.illuminati]

The thing is, marriage is not an expression of love. It is a contract that allows for the distribution of property, the allowance of certain responsibilities in regards to your partner, certain rights regarding children ect.

All of the personal sovereignty will not protect a gay partner surviving the loss of a partner in a custody battle with uncle frank who thinks queers can't raise kids. A married surviving partner would have little trouble taking custody of the kid unless uncle frank could prove there was abuse, negligence or what have you.

I have not read prop 8 as closely as I could have, does anyone know if it prevents a civil union? The next step, even while this is working through the courts is to push that and expand the rights of civil unions. The you have a reasonable separate but equal case to tear the amendment apart with.

At least thats my take.

for the legal protection and distribution of property etc...

please see:

http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Mar/...15/133340.html

it's available... only thing missing is the word marriage...

it explains the rights that domestic partners have in California... it was harder for my wife to put me on her insurance than for a gay couple... they just have to sign a paper that says they are committed... i am all for gay rights, but they have legal rights (at least in cali) once properly registered...

a bunch of my gay (male) friends in San Fran voted against it... not sure why...

[soma_stardust]

OBAMA FTW!
i almost cried when it was announced.
i want to punch people for letting prop 8 pass. i want to kill them for even letting it on the fucking ballot.
THEY WILL KNOW MY WRATH.
it ain't over. it'll never be over.

[BGartin]

Am I the only one in here that is conservative? Even a bit?

[batzilla]

Am I the only one in here that is conservative? Even a bit?

It depends on how you mean. You can find some fiscal conservatives on this site, but maybe not so many social conservatives. We're all a bunch of queer-lovin', devil-worshippin', porn-viewin', abortion-gettin', substance-usin', euthanasia-supportin', etcetcetc freaks here.