We'll see what goes down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MacG
Hey All,
Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?
MacG
The reality is that... unless we apply a "God-qualifier" to any/every law contrived or implemented, it will at best be unfair and at worst (and most grievously) UNCONS***UTIONAL, according to our U.S. Cons***ution. Certainly, relatively-few 'heterosexual' people... would desire for DIVORCE laws to be subjected to such a 'qualification'.
I due time, the California "Proposition 18" will be tested/examined before the American people in the highest court(s) of this land.
I'm certain many properly and eagerly await that time.
No real reasons to discriminate in the fashion which many states certainly have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Columcille
I think the Supreme Court will turn it down.
We'll see, but law/politics are not so predictable, in my mind. I hope that the Supreme Court will set a precedent that ends the legal wrangling over the human rights of ****sexual people, once and for all in America.
Quote:
There would be some serious problems by nationalizing it, it would affect our relationship with other countries, and it would put a larger strain on INS, and INS needs some serious reform already.
Let those nations get over it. Human rights matter MOST. TO me, immigration is a mostly separate issue.
Quote:
I know, I married a foriegner.
It will likely all be worked through/out, just as it was in your case.
Quote:
I think it better that the individual states decide on their own.
I do not agree, but I see your point.
Quote:
Legislation should not be coming from the bench anyways, the will of the people of California turned it down.
There are no valid reasons to discriminate against ****sexual people, as many would have it. To me, the Cons***ution speaks more clearly on this than many individuals states do. Even so, we shall see what comes of the many court cases and various legislation in the years ahead.
The effects of Prop-18 upon the people of California and the nation, are capricious and arbitrary (in reality); it will be challenged for some time.
Stick with the U.S. Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Columcille
Human rights in those other countries do matter, and so our relationship could severly affect any human rights victories we have won so far.
Everything is 'connected' somehow; but to say that we should prohibit ****sexuals the relationships they do have rights to (in America), because of human rights concerns abroad, isn't very significant.
Quote:
The ****sexuals in our country fair a lot better than in the Middle East and elsewhere.
A LOT OF THINGS are far-better for Americans than those in other nations. We already know that.
Quote:
And if you want to see how we meddle in foriegn affairs, and the lessons learned from it, I suggest you read about how the CIA helped in Iran, and how that seriously backfired.
You are talking about affecting this other nations; I've been talking about "America"; didn't you notice that?
Quote:
If you want America to be viewed even more as a society of infidels, thereby causing more of a religious conservative backlash within Islam nations, I think it would be tragic toward the progress we have made for women in those countries we have liberated.
We've sucked up many criticisms for less-valid reasons; allowing ****sexual people to marry is America, bears little upon the choices in many of the nations you are mentioning. Even so, we don't need more excuses, to keep discriminating against ****sexual people here.
Quote:
I think there are more human rights violations worldwide against women than against ****sexuals, because ****sexuality is a very minor grouping and also you should be concerned with the human rights violations against women, because where they progress with them, the ****sexuals have hope in progress also.
(I addressed your concerns above; those are generally separate issues.)
Quote:
If anything, it is best settle on a state by state basis.
I do NOT agree; and we differ on that.
Quote:
Small town America does not need some city slicker to tell them how to run their business, and vice versa.
I think some of the greatest problems are with small-mind America, and that has nothing to do with the population of any particular geographic location.