Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

In that case, okay. Only on the legal basis.

But a lot of people aren't talking about the legal basis when they discuss this issue or discuss that image posted. They are talking about the interaction between the legal and the social realms. For example, how "separate but equal" clauses keep people from not only being married but from being treated as human beings who are equally protected under the law in other aspects.

Given KSigKid's background, I felt quite confident that he was approaching this from a legal standpoint.

And I'm still glad you're back.

Originally Posted by OtterXO

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

The CA Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases challenging Prop 8. Should be interesting...

I just don't understand how California works. How can the Supreme Court hear anything until a lower court has heard and decided it first and someone has appealed?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Given KSigKid's background, I felt quite confident that he was approaching this from a legal standpoint.

And I'm still glad you're back.

I just don't understand how California works. How can the Supreme Court hear anything until a lower court has heard and decided it first and someone has appealed?

The court can accept original cases that they believe is important for the state as a whole... it requires a majority vote of the court, in this case, 6 out of 7 of the justices accepted the case...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Given KSigKid's background, I felt quite confident that he was approaching this from a legal standpoint.

Well, technically, Ksigkid hasn't touched this with a 30-foot pole - it was me . . . however, your point (perhaps without irony) still holds. Definitely legal.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I just don't understand how California works. How can the Supreme Court hear anything until a lower court has heard and decided it first and someone has appealed?

To be honest . . . I don't understand how CA works, period. Not just the Court.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I know I meant in terms of trying to make a direct connection to gay marriage and Black history in America. Also, the fact that you aptly pointed out that many gays, especially white gays, want to ride the coat tails of the Black Civil Rights movement without really understanding the emotions involved.

Hey sigma...I kinda get what you mean about not really seeing other instances of discrimination being proposed for similarities. But, what I find on this issue is that a lot of people (of both orientations) propose to me that the gay rights issue is like the civil rights issue because I'm black. It's their way of trying to establish a common ground with me, connect with me on an emotional level, etc. I imagine there's lots of examples of other groups they could use and probably do with those other groups. I think, as it's the "most recent American experience" it is presented a lot to Americans in general (more than Native Americans and Jews anyway), but moreso with us in particular. Do you think there might be a possibility that this issue seems to crop up way more with you for the same reason as it does for me?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Hey sigma...I kinda get what you mean about not really seeing other instances of discrimination being proposed for similarities. But, what I find on this issue is that a lot of people (of both orientations) propose to me that the gay rights issue is like the civil rights issue because I'm black. It's their way of trying to establish a common ground with me, connect with me on an emotional level, etc. I imagine there's lots of examples of other groups they could use and probably do with those other groups. I think, as it's the "most recent American experience" it is presented a lot to Americans in general (more than Native Americans and Jews anyway), but moreso with us in particular. Do you think there might be a possibility that this issue seems to crop up way more with you for the same reason as it does for me?

I don't know what your reasons are.

The only reason this issue cropped up for me was because I took offense at the picture KSig RC used. Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

If people want to be gay - fine. I will not ever try to stop them. I just draw the line at gay marriage. I will not support that based on a moral issue.

If they want civil unions / domestic partnerships, I'm actually okay with that.

But, don't claim, or imply, that they have been discriminated against in a manner in which they have not. Like I said, my parents and older relatives truly lived separate but equal lives. I grew up in Texas, I understand what that means. Gays have not been treated in the same type of separate but equal way as American Blacks were, which we have already established.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, technically, Ksigkid hasn't touched this with a 30-foot pole - it was me . . . however, your point (perhaps without irony) still holds. Definitely legal.

Ooops. Sorry. I'm usually pretty good about keeping you two fraternal twins straight, but every now and then . . . .

To be honest . . . I don't understand how CA works, period. Not just the Court.

LOL. Me either. And thanks, a.e.B.O.T. Sounds like a very odd system to me for an appellate court to take original jusrisdiction in a case like this, with no record developed below, but hey -- if it works for them, who am I to argue?

[RaggedyAnn]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

But, don't claim, or imply, that they have been discriminated against in a manner in which they have not. Like I said, my parents and older relatives truly lived separate but equal lives. I grew up in Texas, I understand what that means. Gays have not been treated in the same type of separate but equal way as American Blacks were, which we have already established.

I understand your argument now. Thanks for the clarification.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by RaggedyAnn

I understand your argument now. Thanks for the clarification.

cool....

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

But, don't claim, or imply, that they have been discriminated against in a manner in which they have not. Like I said, my parents and older relatives truly lived separate but equal lives. I grew up in Texas, I understand what that means. Gays have not been treated in the same type of separate but equal way as American Blacks were, which we have already established.

I agree with this part.

However, I do acknowledge that being denied an ability to live your life without fear of mistreatment based on sexual orientation is salient in some contexts. As heterosexuals, we take for granted the ability to be able to hold hands in public without people staring or threatening bodily harm. We take for granted the right to marry and receive whatever economic, political, and social benefits from that. We take for granted the ability to have everything catered to a two-sex couple. We take these things for granted for the same reason any other majority group takes things for granted. We don't have to think about it because our existences are dominated by majority ideals. That still doesn't make this stuff all the same.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I don't know what your reasons are.

The only reason this issue cropped up for me was because I took offense at the picture KSig RC used. Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

Oh no, I get that. I was responding to your statement (probably some pages ago by now) that people constantly compare gay rights to Blacks/civil rights and not to American Indians, Jews, etc. (BTW, "Dr. Phil", I loved the way you summed up the "similar but not same" post, very well-written!) That's why I said that people do that all the time with me because I'm black and that's their attempt to make the issue more personal with me (i.e., eliciting emotion from me as part of their persuasion). It's not that I'm only hearing it frequently because of bias or whatever, people have actually admitted to doing so for that reason. I wanted your thoughts on the possibility that you might be experiencing the same thing when you say that the civil rights comparison is the one that you seem to hear all the time. Did I say that a little better? I know sometimes I talk in circles so I hope that wasn't too confusing.

ETA: I'm not sure who posted this, but someone mentioned a gay couple being legally allowed to attend prom some 30 years ago. Did I read that right? Did that apply solely to public (government controlled) schools or to all schools? Because I know there was a big ruckus at my high school around prom time because it was a CLEAR rule that same-sex couples wouldn't be allowed to attend. They wouldn't even be sold tickets. If you came to prom, it had to be with a date of the opposite sex. A friend of mine burst into tears hearing that because she couldn't find a date so she'd planned to go with her best friend who hadn't been asked either. (Sidenote: at first, singles weren't allowed either. Anyone going to prom had to have a date but, with the boy/girl ratio being what it was, there were so many girls left dateless that they had to change it. Yeah, my school was awesome, right? ). But it was a private school, so was that what made the difference? Back then, it never occurred to me that something like that could possibly be illegal.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Oh no, I get that. I was responding to your statement (probably some pages ago by now) that people constantly compare gay rights to Blacks/civil rights and not to American Indians, Jews, etc. (BTW, "Dr. Phil", I loved the way you summed up the "similar but not same" post, very well-written!) That's why I said that people do that all the time with me because I'm black and that's their attempt to make the issue more personal with me (i.e., eliciting emotion from me as part of their persuasion). It's not that I'm only hearing it frequently because of bias or whatever, people have actually admitted to doing so for that reason. I wanted your thoughts on the possibility that you might be experiencing the same thing. Did I say that a little better? I know sometimes I talk in circles so I hope that wasn't too confusing.

Oh, okay, I got ya!

Well, no not really. I don't hear it in the context that people are trying to relate it to me because I'm Black. I think using images and relating it to the Civil Rights movement is just their way to tie into an already known event, as opposed to creating their own.

If the issue of gay marriage is so compelling, then it is an issue that can stand on it's own. It does not need 'help' from another major issue. Does that make sense?

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Oh, okay, I got ya!

Well, no not really. I don't hear it in the context that people are trying to relate it to me because I'm Black. I think using images and relating it to the Civil Rights movement is just their way to tie into an already known event, as opposed to creating their own.

If the issue of gay marriage is so compelling, then it is an issue that can stand on it's own. It does not need 'help' from another major issue. Does that make sense?

Definitely. I do agree that it's a issue compelling enough to "stand on its own" but I also know that people will always try to make their argument stronger by attempting to back it up with precedents (even if the association is "loose" at best). This applies no matter who the people or the argument.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

The only reason this issue cropped up for me was because I took offense at the picture KSig RC used. Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

Fair enough, if you feel that way - but I think the response I intended to elicit ("civil union" is a massive cop out to make people feel better, and doesn't actually solve anything) is well worth drawing into the conversation. Whether you feel that is 'propaganda' is solely discretionary on you.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

If people want to be gay - fine. I will not ever try to stop them. I just draw the line at gay marriage. I will not support that based on a moral issue.

This is completely fair (and should have comprised most of your first posts), as well, although I feel you're coming from the wrong angle solely because I don't want this specific type of morality to govern law. You do. There's room for reasonable people to disagree on that front.

You have taken the comparison much further than I ever did, though, which seems like a classic "YMMV" scenario.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

If the issue of gay marriage is so compelling, then it is an issue that can stand on it's own. It does not need 'help' from another major issue. Does that make sense?

This makes perfect sense, and I'm totally fine with this - actually, this completely clarifies where you're coming from, and I'm much more clear on your previous posts. I think it's a strawman argument, but that's certainly up for debate - again, I find that comparison has utility for certain (humongous) segments of the population who are willing to make a "false dilemma" compromise on an issue they have very little perspective to deal with, as most people think in comparative terms rather than absolute terms. YMMV.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I just draw the line at gay marriage. I will not support that based on a moral issue.

If they want civil unions / domestic partnerships, I'm actually okay with that.

So you're saying that separate but equal is okay?

[preciousjeni]

Can someone explain to me why heterosexual couples have the right to be married?