Calif. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill

[minsue]

No one said it. I said doing so is a serious mistake. I said making analogies to the civil rights movement and the movement to leagalize gay marriage does not hold up on a historic basis in terms of time frame and scope of acceptance.

Kas made such an analogy. I stated why I thought the analogy was wrong. I supported my contention to the best of my ability, without resorting to google wars. I gave specific example of nationwide aceptance with Harry Turman.

That's where I'm confused. The assumption that "the civil rights movement" or laws regarding interracial marraiage automically refers to the deep south in the sixties. I didn't see that in Kass's post at all. Just in your reply. I didn't assume you were being personal, beautiful. I just got lost in the leap and am trying to catch up and get unconfuzzled.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

that i know little to nothing about governmental proceedings. i do know, however, what my convictions are. why not completely separate church and state as stated here in this thread. i don't need marriage, however, i do need equal rights. god forbid that lucky croaks. if she does, i will have little to no rights to our youngest. what about the house that is in her name...the house that i have poured my heart into...at this point we cant afford legal documents but if we were married, that wouldnt even be an issue. that, is enough to make me gag. what if lucky gets sick and someone in her family doesnt like me? i could be banned from seeing her in hospital.
as far as im concerned, marriage isnt the big issue. the big issue is equal rights...call it civil union as long as it carries with it the same rights as marriage for all i care.

Do you thihnk that pressing for civil unions would engender the same kind of resistance and backlash? I tend to believe you could press for spousal rights in a lot of areas and get them codified. I also tend to believe in certin states you could mount a sucessful campaign to have civil unions recognized by state governmental bodies which would include including family court.

If several states already had civil unions codified and if spousal rights inthose staes were confered by those unions, then you could make an attempt to gain full marriage rights. The step from nothing to spousal rights is huge in symbolic terms, but it's rather small in the big picture. The step from spousal rights to civil union is also small, the step fromthere to full mairriage rights is symboliclly huge, but realistically not that great. The step from nothing to full marriage rights is huge both symbolically and practically.

Pragmatically then, the goals shuld be approached incrementally. Along the way, you take away themost powerful tool in the opposition's arsenal. You take away fear. People who are used to something don't fear it. I live in the shadow of a nuclear reactor, when I moved here, it was a big deal, now I don't even think abou tit unless I'm watching enginering disasters on TV. If you give people time to get used to spousal rights and they see their fears were unjustified, when you try to move to civl unions, it's very difficult to whip them up nto a fenzy of fear.

I am not against gay marriage or gay rights. I'm against trying to skip the incremental steps and just shove it down the population's throat whether they like it or not. I'm against this tack because it runs counter to what has been proven historically to work. Revolutions and radical implematation of ideas almost never works. When it does, the results can be spectacular, Al la, the Us, but the odds are monumentally against it working.

Often, radical departures are met with a backlash that sets implementation of the policies back years if not decades. Ask the British about how well Cromwell's jamming republicanism down their throats went. Ask blacks how well the radical republicans jamming full equality down the throats of the poulace went for them. Ask Rusians how well the revolution wet towards getting thier voices heard. the list, large and small, geos on and on and on.

I, above almost anyone, think you and lucky should be able to get married. I probably won't ever get married, but I have freinds like you two whom I love dearly and I wish it for you. It seems to me though, that I alone, recognize and vocalize the danger to that dream this radical approach engenders. If a federal amendment gets passed, the odds are very good that your children's children may be the first ones to experience that equality.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That's where I'm confused. The assumption that "the civil rights movement" or laws regarding interracial marraiage automically refers to the deep south in the sixties. I didn't see that in Kass's post at all. Just in your reply. I didn't assume you were being personal, beautiful. I just got lost in the leap and am trying to catch up and get unconfuzzled.

An analogy is based on the assumption that two disimilar things are comparable. Suggesting that the civil rightsmovemnt for blacks and the push for gay marriage are analogous, indicates the person making the analogy sees that they are comparable.

What is being done with gay marriage, is not comparable to what was done with interracial mariage. While the goal may be analogous, the method being employed is not on the whole. The analogy does stand up, if you isolate the deep south in the sixties where gay marriage was entierly proscribed.

I was simply saying, the analogy isn't workable. I chose the only way in which it could be workable as attempted to demonstrate that case is incorrect.

If I erred in assuming that the only way the methods are analogous is by isolating one, gay marriage, to the deep south in the sixties, then I am incorrect. I don't think I am.

If you are going to logiccally point out where something fails, then you have to determine on what grounds it will work and from there, demonstarte thouse grounds to be false.

The analogy holds up only if you disreguard the rest of the United states when you make it. Otherwise, there were staes where interracial marrigae was legal and the majority of the country was not united against integration, in fact it was an accomplished fact in many places incliuding the military.

 

[minsue]

An analogy is based on the assumption that two disimilar things are comparable. Suggesting that the civil rightsmovemnt for blacks and the push for gay marriage are analogous, indicates the person making the analogy sees that they are comparable.

What is being done with gay marriage, is not comparable to what was done with interracial mariage. While the goal may be analogous, the method being employed is not on the whole. The analogy does stand up, if you isolate the deep south in the sixties where gay marriage was entierly proscribed.

I was simply saying, the analogy isn't workable. I chose the only way in which it could be workable as attempted to demonstrate that case is incorrect.

If I erred in assuming that the only way the methods are analogous is by isolating one, gay marriage, to the deep south in the sixties, then I am incorrect. I don't think I am.

If you are going to logiccally point out where something fails, then you have to determine on what grounds it will work and from there, demonstarte thouse grounds to be false.

The analogy holds up only if you disreguard the rest of the United states when you make it. Otherwise, there were staes where interracial marrigae was legal and the majority of the country was not united against integration, in fact it was an accomplished fact in many places incliuding the military.

I don't think we're going to understand each other here. I don't see the civil rights movement for blacks in America as being confined to the deep south in the 60's so we're just not seeing eye to eye. I never said if I agree with the analogy or not, though I most certainly do. A fight for equality is a fight for equality.

No one else is disregarding the rest of the United States, beautiful. Not that I've seen in any posts. That's why I was and continue to be confused.

And it's not as though the rest of the states were all for handing freedom over to those they were keeping it from. EVER. The fight for equality will always be a battle, regardless.

Either way, I'm out. Like I said, we're talking about two entirely different things when referring to the fight for civil rights so we're just not going to come anywhere near seeing eye to eye because we're on completely different maps. I was just trying to understand your original post when I replied, that's all, and it's not going to happen because of the different assumptions of when the civil rights movement began and what exactly that phrase means.

Peace.

 

[woodnymph_O]

that i know little to nothing about governmental proceedings. i do know, however, what my convictions are. why not completely separate church and state as stated here in this thread. i don't need marriage, however, i do need equal rights. god forbid that lucky croaks. if she does, i will have little to no rights to our youngest. what about the house that is in her name...the house that i have poured my heart into...at this point we cant afford legal documents but if we were married, that wouldnt even be an issue. that, is enough to make me gag. what if lucky gets sick and someone in her family doesnt like me? i could be banned from seeing her in hospital.
as far as im concerned, marriage isnt the big issue. the big issue is equal rights...call it civil union as long as it carries with it the same rights as marriage for all i care.

Big Hug Darlin , You deserve equality no one can argue differently

 

[rgraham666]

Real simple solution for gays who want to marry.

Move to Canada.

 

[Guest]

Real simple solution for gays who want to marry.

Move to Canada.

we have talked about this seriously. the option is still there and maybe one day we will move up.
will you come visit us?

 

[minsue]

Real simple solution for gays who want to marry.

Move to Canada.

Or England.

 

[rgraham666]

we have talked about this seriously. the option is still there and maybe one day we will move up.
will you come visit us?

Try to keep me away.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Real simple solution for gays who want to marry.

Move to Canada.

Or Denmark. Rumour has it, they also have good beer and sausages.

 

[Guest]

Or Denmark. Rumour has it, they also have good beer and sausages.

see, the real draw for me is the BEER!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Must warn you, though. According to this book I read recently, feminism isn't very popular, and complaints against sexism is usually met with a "don't you have a sense of humour?"

 

[elsol]

A fight for equality is a fight for equality.

A fight for equality is won in the trenches; Colleen is saying 'more digging needs to be done'.

For every decision like "Brown vs. Board of Education" there are a hundred decisions that built it one brick at a time.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[minsue]

A fight for equality is won in the trenches; Colleen is saying 'more digging needs to be done'.

For every decision like "Brown vs. Board of Education" there are a hundred decisions that built it one brick at a time.


Sincerely,
ElSol

Sol, that is something I agree with completely. I'm just tired of misunderstanding and being misunderstood.

 

[woodnymph_O]

this all just goes back to the same old statement. America who thinks it is so progressive, and proclaims itself as being free, and usualy BETTER than any other country is sometimes backwoods country ignorant.

***This writer apologizes for any backwoods country ignorant people who are offended by being compared to the stupidity of the policies of these United States*****

Nymphy
supporter of gay EQUALITY

 

[lucky-E-leven]

It seems to me that the big hang up is in the word marriage. From what I understand, Civil Unions would allow nearly all of the same protections and that's the recommendation on where to start winning the battle of homosexual discrimination? I don't give two shits what legislators want to call it. I want to know that if something happens to me, my partner and our children are not penalized for it.

 

[Liar]

Welcome to Sweden 2005, the most equal country in the world.

It just might be, but that would only mean it's slightly less bad than the rest.

 

[Ferawyn]

Or Denmark. Rumour has it, they also have good beer and sausages.

I don't know about the beer, but the sausages and gay marriages are good in Denmark. Just beware of Danish civil servants drafting the contract in english.

"Congratulations with your contractions."

(No joke, although we laughed about it a lot. )

 

[Liar]

It seems to me that the big hang up is in the word marriage. From what I understand, Civil Unions would allow nearly all of the same protections and that's the recommendation on where to start winning the battle of homosexual discrimination? I don't give two shits what legislators want to call it. I want to know that if something happens to me, my partner and our children are not penalized for it.

That's pretty much it, isn't it? I view marriage, the word, as a religious institution. An affirmation in the name of whatever deity you turn to of life long fidelity, or sometherng like that.

So if it, the thing we are really discussing here, is called Civil Union, or even better Cohabitation Form 1128-B instead, people who are against "gay marriage" could see reason.

Because if we look at it practically, what is a gay couple? It's a couple. Two adult citizens. The only thing differing it from some straight couples is that they can not in the traditional way breed new tax payers. Loads of straight couples can't do that either, but they still get the jucidial advantage.

It never cease to baffle me that people say that "mrriage is for a man and a woman". Ok fine. Keep marriage. But give 1128-B to every citizen.

 

[elsol]

*sigh*

Because these people don't really have a problems with gay marriage... they have a problem with gay.

Please tell me that this is not misunderstood.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Liar]

Because these people don't really have a problems with gay marriage... they have a problem with gay.

Yes, but flat out saying "Fags give me the cooties" itsn't exactly PC for a public figure. It's easier to say that "I have nothing against gays, but marriage is for a man and a woman."

I just like to yank that rhetorical rug from under their feet.

 

[Weird Harold]

It seems to me that the big hang up is in the word marriage. From what I understand, Civil Unions would allow nearly all of the same protections ...

"nearly all of the same protections" is the problem -- civil unions don't give the same automatic legal rights as "marriage" because a "Domestic Partner" isn't a "spouse" and their are hundreds of laws in this country that refer to a "spouse's" rights and obligations.

The Governator had no real choice in vetoing this bill because of "Prop 22" which was a popular referendum that passed and made a change to the California Constitution that made the bill he vetoed uncontitutional in California until the Courts actually strike down "Prop 22." Prop 22 may be suspended while it is in the courts, but it is still the law of California until it's struck down by the courts -- if it does get struck down.

 

[woodnymph_O]

Do you ever think to yourself, the same people who are so against gay marrage are probably the worlds greatest conumers of lesbian porn?
an offside issuebut, most seem to take more offense to gay male couples than female. As if to say one is MORE normal than the other. love is normal, sex is normal, but in my area lebian sex is more accepted.

 

[Alex756]

"nearly all of the same protections" is the problem -- civil unions don't give the same automatic legal rights as "marriage" because a "Domestic Partner" isn't a "spouse" and their are hundreds of laws in this country that refer to a "spouse's" rights and obligations.

But it is more right than right -now- to take the middle steps is how civil liberties tend to be won.

It is better than nothing and better than creating a knee jerk reaction against what the ultimate purpose is.

If states pass laws that domestic partners get certain right, laws can be amended. gay partners can get health insurance from their sig o, get custody of children, get alimony/palimony & Child support when a partnership disolves, have hospital visitation, get the rights in a way that will work.

Alot of the country doesn't consider a JoP ceremony to be a 'real', so something even less 'real' than that like a partnership thing would pass. so few would be vehemently against it. MUCH of the middle is pro civil unions, if 75% is pro civil unions, it will pass. Once people have gotten used to that, it will be less of a step towards a legal marriage.

Getting Civil unions and rights through that does NOT mean not eventually being able to marry, it means just putting it on hold for a little bit to get the really important right now. Like the right to take care of the kids if your partner should die. You can get the important parts without the legal marriage.

~Alex

 

[Willie Stroker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050929/pl_nm/rights_california_gaymarriage_dc

Is anyone truly surprised?
I had hoped but I knew better, really. Thoughts?

The conservatives would have dumped him had he passed the bill...............