California Proposition 8

[Pidgey]

You're telling me that there's something in the orange juice?

 

[Sihouette]

You are the only one who continually tries to change the subject by pushing the idea that marriage equality will result in legal child molesting. This is a horror-fantasy of yours with no support in reality. You're afraid, we get that, but projecting your fear onto others will not ultimately help you deal with it.

Again, we're talking now about legal precidents set once the word "love" is used to justify a marital union outside the boundaries of a one-on-one heterosexual union.

Here, let me spell it out for you dear. I bring up NAMBLA as a worst-case scenario of the "love" precident. You're a big one for equality and equal rights, even in the case of something that most people consider perverted...like homosexuality.

Are you getting it yet? Still need me to walk you through?

Now any attorney worth his salt can take your "equality" argument, citing "love" as the reason for your union and represent another client(s) interested in gaining the same "rights" that you just won, for your perverse union, and apply it to another type of perverse union outside monogamous heterosexuality.

Get it? L-E-G-A-L P-R-E-C-I-D-E-N-T. Using the umbrella of "equality" and the fact that one form of deviant sexuality has won the right to marry...then therefore all deviant forms, including bigamy and NAMBLA advocates should be examined under the same concept that won the gay right to marry, "love".

It's all about equal rights, right?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again, we're talking now about legal precidents set once the word "love" is used to justify a marital union outside the boundaries of a one-on-one heterosexual union.

Here, let me spell it out for you dear. I bring up NAMBLA as a worst-case scenario of the "love" precident. You're a big one for equality and equal rights, even in the case of something that most people consider perverted...like homosexuality.

Are you getting it yet? Still need me to walk you through?

Now any attorney worth his salt can take your "equality" argument, citing "love" as the reason for your union and represent another client(s) interested in gaining the same "rights" that you just won, for your perverse union, and apply it to another type of perverse union outside monogamous heterosexuality.

Get it? L-E-G-A-L P-R-E-C-I-D-E-N-T. Using the umbrella of "equality" and the fact that one form of deviant sexuality has won the right to marry...then therefore all deviant forms, including bigamy and NAMBLA advocates should be examined under the same concept that won the gay right to marry, "love".

It's all about equal rights, right?

Once again you are changing what other people post in order to inject your own fantasy horrors into the discussion. You are the only one who is trying to set a precedent based on "love". All the thinking adults on this site are talking about all CONSENTING ADULTS being allowed to have equality in marriage. It's a stupid argument and has nothing to do with legal marriage and CONSENTING ADULTS. How many times do you have to be told this?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You're telling me that there's something in the orange juice?

Only in Anita's and Siho's, I think it's LSD and they are having bad trips with all kinds of imaginary horrors. What else could explain a total inability to learn or even to stay focused on the essentials of the discussion?

 

[Pidgey]

Well, I'm starting to wonder now about some of the supporting codification with respect to "marriage". I hadn't considered that there might be a legal progression from "love" to "marriage" in the Western law system. In many countries, the basis of the laws regarding marriage are fairly practical--they're literally for tracking breeding and property as an inheritance issue. The concept of tailoring the laws to deal with a union based on nothing more than companionship is rather unknown, I've heard.

As an aside, if you, Mare, are actually looking emotionally more for affirmation of your existence and circumstance, I would tend to think that these laws being changed to suit you would still ultimately fail because hard reality is still just that: "wherever you go, there you are." Ask yourself exactly what it is that you personally want out of such a revision to the current codification and try not to lie to yourself--we're all masters at that, you know. You've made comments about being considered a second-class citizen before and do you think that revisions to the law would change how the folks from whom you get such an impression would actually feel about it? Crap, a childless couple can't even shake that ultimate stigma from their own parents who want heirs.

Let's take a second and imagine a slightly different scenario with different players: a grandfather/grandmother pair have six kids, comprising three boys and three girls. The family has heirlooms that have been with the family for several generations. The oldest boy who should get "the birthright" marries a girl and they try and try but can't have children. If all the family heirlooms go to them and the state takes a big cut in probate later, that's history and continuity lost to a dead end.

Is it wrong for the original couple to want codification to ultimately protect against that outcome? I know... there are a thousand revisions that one could make to that story given our resources and knowledge today that ultimately would only serve to derail the point: how much of yesteryear's multi-generational wisdom do we want to sacrifice in order to serve today's instant gratification ethos?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, I'm starting to wonder now about some of the supporting codification with respect to "marriage". I hadn't considered that there might be a legal progression from "love" to "marriage" in the Western law system. In many countries, the basis of the laws regarding marriage are fairly practical--they're literally for tracking breeding and property as an inheritance issue. The concept of tailoring the laws to deal with a union based on nothing more than companionship is rather unknown, I've heard.

I'm not aware of any progression from love to marriage in the civil law system, but that is a convenient ruse if you are looking to accuse others of trying to sneak pedophillia into the legal realm. Marriage is a legal contract in US law, nothing more.

As an aside, if you, Mare, are actually looking emotionally more for affirmation of your existence and circumstance, I would tend to think that these laws being changed to suit you would still ultimately fail because hard reality is still just that: "wherever you go, there you are." Ask yourself exactly what it is that you personally want out of such a revision to the current codification and try not to lie to yourself--we're all masters at that, you know. You've made comments about being considered a second-class citizen before and do you think that revisions to the law would change how the folks from whom you get such an impression would actually feel about it? Crap, a childless couple can't even shake that ultimate stigma from their own parents who want heirs.

First I want to thank you for asking me a question about what I want instead of just telling me that I'm a deviant and deluded child molestor.

I will assume that you have not read all my posts on this thread because I have gone into quite a bit of detail about my life and the whys and wherefores of what I have done. I'm not looking for societal approval, I am here for the legal rights that are being systematically denied to me and others like me on the basis of ignorance and bigotry. I am legally and happily married, we have two sons, I wish to be able to remain married and enjoy all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities that any other married couple is guaranteed under the Constitution and Federal law.

As far as acceptance in social realm goes, I'm good, thanks. I'm presentable, I own my home, I'm the President of my own company, all the employees know about me, our customers do, our suppliers do, and it's very rare that I get any grief from anyone except the occasional person is some social setting--but we all get crap now and then from somebody so it's no big deal. There are people who accuse us of trying to legitimize ourselves and for some I'm sure that's true, but isn't that true of some people in all groups? More than anything, I'd like the beatings, rapes, and killings to stop. Think of us as the new n1ggers in society, we don't want to sit on the back of the bus, we want the lynchings to stop, we want to have equality. We want what you already have.

Let's take a second and imagine a slightly different scenario with different players: a grandfather/grandmother pair have six kids, comprising three boys and three girls. The family has heirlooms that have been with the family for several generations. The oldest boy who should get "the birthright" marries a girl and they try and try but can't have children. If all the family heirlooms go to them and the state takes a big cut in probate later, that's history and continuity lost to a dead end.

Is it wrong for the original couple to want codification to ultimately protect against that outcome? I know... there are a thousand revisions that one could make to that story given our resources and knowledge today that ultimately would only serve to derail the point: how much of yesteryear's multi-generational wisdom do we want to sacrifice in order to serve today's instant gratification ethos?

And therein lies the problem, if you assume that all gay and transpeople are just into an instant gratification ethos, then we have no right to anything. If you put us into the child molestor class--as Siho has worked so hard to do--then we are the human garbage that my brothers accuse me of being and we should be killed just like the Bible demands. But we're not like that, that view of us is a religious myth, a cultural construct with no basis in reality or science. That's why Siho has had to resort to veterinarian articles and popular magazines for her "evidence", two of the things she posted directly contradicted her position. Please feel free to ask me questions, I'm out, I speak publicly on the subject of transsexualism at University classes every term. Even though some people try to use my openess against me and twist my words to their own ends, I'm still willing to to share my life because people need to have a chance to learn about us FROM US and FROM SCIENCE, not from animal trainers.

The science is out there for anyone who wants to read it, but too many people are happier with a comforting lie than an uncomfortable truth.

 

[top gun]

Can't green you yet, but you deserve one for this post! Thanks. Maybe you have hit the nail on the head with your thought that Siho maybe more easily tricked into perversion than other people and feels a desperate need to protect herself and the new generation. Something is sure going on her that she's not telling us.

Thanks Mare... it's either paranoia runs deep...

or

Me thinks she protests too much!

Could be either but I for one would prefer neither!

I think the real problem is Silo has gay and vampire mixed up. Will someone please take Silo to a gay bar and show her they don't bite... unless she asks them to!

 

[Pidgey]

First I want to thank you for asking me a question about what I want instead of just telling me that I'm a deviant and deluded child molestor.

Welcome.

I will assume that you have not read all my posts on this thread because I have gone into quite a bit of detail about my life and the whys and wherefores of what I have done. I'm not looking for societal approval, I am here for the legal rights that are being systematically denied to me and others like me on the basis of ignorance and bigotry. I am legally and happily married, we have two sons, I wish to be able to remain married and enjoy all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities that any other married couple is guaranteed under the Constitution and Federal law.

No, haven't read all the posts on this thread by a long shot--just looked in occasionally out of boredom and noticed an excessively, repetitively, redundant pattern. I suppose I've added my comments to actually help get past that perceived impasse.

Seeing as how your marriage began... "normally", I don't think you're really in any danger of losing anything. Last I heard, they didn't do "post-marital package checks" (your tax dollars at work?). Is there any way that the laws and bans as written could actually have any effect on you and yours given the circumstances? Wouldn't the only way that you could personally be affected is if a family member contested an inheritance or something like that?

And therein lies the problem, if you assume that all gay and transpeople are just into an instant gratification ethos, then we have no right to anything.

Oh, I don't know... I'd have to say that an awful lot of folks today are very "instant gratification" oriented. For my part, what's yours is yours. Some folks are just very much "... and what's mine SHOULDN'T be yours, too."

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Seeing as how your marriage began... "normally", I don't think you're really in any danger of losing anything. Last I heard, they didn't do "post-marital package checks" (your tax dollars at work?). Is there any way that the laws and bans as written could actually have any effect on you and yours given the circumstances? Wouldn't the only way that you could personally be affected is if a family member contested an inheritance or something like that?

Even though we are currently grandfathered through, marriages like ours have been specifically targeted since I am now legally female and that is in direct opposition to the "will of the people". It's a gray area in law in most States so all we can do is wait and see.

Oh, I don't know... I'd have to say that an awful lot of folks today are very "instant gratification" oriented. For my part, what's yours is yours. Some folks are just very much "... and what's mine SHOULDN'T be yours, too."

I was refering to legal rights as opposed to property, if we have no reason to be gay or trans except for some kind of weird instant sexual gratification, then the argument is that we are no different than child molestors and we should have no legal rights.

 

[Pidgey]

Even though we are currently grandfathered through...

Seems like "grandmothered" would be more appropriate.

I was refering to legal rights as opposed to property, if we have no reason to be gay or trans except for some kind of weird instant sexual gratification, then the argument is that we are no different than child molestors and we should have no legal rights.

You mean legal rights for consenting adults to engage in sexual activities of their choice in their own privacy? Well, sounds like the underlying principles here are probably the most hotly-contested then. On behalf of "instant sexual gratification", I'd expect that we're all guilty of that from time to time, so only the "weird" part comes into play (no pun intended) for this discussion, methinks.

Personally, I see a world of difference between transgender and gay. And not all gays are the same, either. Case in point: we had a fellow working as a Chem E for our company. He was slightly effeminate but not flaming. I was out in the field so much that I wasn't "in the loop" on all the typical office affairs--and didn't really give much of a crap, either. When you're going to places like Nigeria, the Sahara and other hellholes, that kind of stuff just doesn't get priority attention.

Anyhow, I finally had occasion to work with him over some product brochure stuff and got to know him a little bit, seemed like a decent sort. About that time, I got some of the lowdown on his "boyfriend" from the drafting manager--seems the guy would show up every day about quitting time to literally herd our employee home. One day, the drafting manager and I were standing out in front of the building when this character shows up and comes bounding up the stairs. He had a very mad expression on his face, went right between the two of us like we weren't there and obviously was going to go slap his little b*tch back to the house. I think I got to see several of those deals. He (the boyfriend) NEVER had anything to do with any of us. Ever.

Different strokes for different folks, an' all, but I gotta' tell ya'--one of those times I felt like nailin' that b@stard between the eyes and droppin' him right there on the steps, and not because he was gay, but rather because I had such a strong suspicion that he was abusing our employee on a regular basis like a d@mn wife-beater. Pretty doggone confusin' feelins' to an old right-wing redneck like me, I gotta' tell ya'... My other suspicion was that our employee liked it that way.

Now... both of them probably would qualify in that "weird instant sexual gratification" category mentioned earlier. We all accept that some sexual behavior is pathological, but I can see examples of the same pathology in both the gay and heterosexual communities. What you seem to end up with is a staggering plethora of variations and a hugely daunting task to actually rewrite the laws to cover all possibilities. You know... it's just a helluva' lot easier to resort to "the installed equipment is self-explanatory" option. But also given that example couple, it's pretty easy to see how a lot of folks could be pretty adverse to their tax dollars going in any way, shape or form to those specific individuals.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

But also given that example couple, it's pretty easy to see how a lot of folks could be pretty adverse to their tax dollars going in any way, shape or form to those specific individuals.

What tax dollars would those be? I don't see that there will be any inherent costs to the system that are not inherent to heterosexual relationships.

Mostly I agree with you, but I also know from my own experience that external genitalia don't tell the whole story. I know mine were wrong, they were irrelevant to who I was, but I was forced to pretend to be a man for nearly 50 years before I got proper medical treatment for my birth defect. I looked like a man even though I never had the right levels of hormones in my body and it took up into my late twenties for me to complete puberty.

Yes, there are vast differences between gay and trans people, but mostly people can't figure that out so we get the same treatment as they do. I'm glad you can see a difference.

My luck would be that we'd be "grandmutha'd".

 

[jrobert484]

The error in the public's judgement, as I believe they will soon find out when this is settled in the courts, is that American democracy has never been based upon the concept of "majority rule". This is a common mistake and over simplification of how our democracy works and has worked through out history. If our democracy was based upon "majority rule", interacial marriage would have not been permitted because at the time that it was legalized by the courts, 90% of "the people" had voted to not allow such marriages. However, because American Democracy is based upon our constitution, not upon the sentiments or social prejudices of the masses, laws which contradict the federal constitution cannot be voted into existance (which includes ammendments to state constitutions).

A good example to help you understand better how our democracy truly works, as oppossed to the description of it as "majority rules", is this: Lets say I decided to put a measure on the ballot to outlaw all hand guns in the state of California. I only need a certain amount of signatures to make it an official proposition. I can very easily get enough signatures in one week by standing on corners in Berkeley, San Francisco, Hollywood and Santa Cruz. So now it goes onto the ballot and it narrowly passes because California has more hippys than hunters in it. Well, the majority of the state has spoken, right? Now everyone must surrender their hand guns and retailers through the state must close down, correct?

Wrong!

It is unconstitutional to not put a measure on the ballot if it collected enough signatures. It is also unconstitutional to pass a state law which is in conflict with the federal constitution, and despite the fact that the majority of Californians have spoken loudly about handguns, the majority of gun haters may not vote away the rights of the minority of gun lovers. Americans have the right to bare arms, period. The courts will have to over rule the measure and enforce the rights of the minority in such a case. Gun haters will scream that the judges are activists, and they will accuse the gun lovers of being whiners and anarchists, but the simple fact is the proposition was unconstitutional because American Democracy has always been based upon the concept of "justice and freedom for ALL". It has never been based upon the concept of "justice and freedom for the MAJORITY".

So, now you see why Proposition 8 must be over turned by the courts, even if Mormons and rednecks unite and march in the streets. The judges must do their sworn job, and that is to enforce the United States Constitution. If the majority does not like the judges doing their jobs the way they are sworn to do, the majority has the constitutional right to vote for politicians who will be more sympathetic to their agenda. However, the new judges will be sworn to the same duty of enforcing the Constitution, and the cycle will go on and on. See how smart our founding fathers were?

No matter what ones personal bigotrys are, the majority may never take away the rights of the minority; not as long as our proud flag waves and the constitution is upheld in the great American spirit that has made us home of the free.

John

 

[top gun]

The error in the public's judgement, as I believe they will soon find out when this is settled in the courts, is that American democracy has never been based upon the concept of "majority rule". This is a common mistake and over simplification of how our democracy works and has worked through out history. If our democracy was based upon "majority rule", interacial marriage would have not been permitted because at the time that it was legalized by the courts, 90% of "the people" had voted to not allow such marriages. However, because American Democracy is based upon our constitution, not upon the sentiments or social prejudices of the masses, laws which contradict the federal constitution cannot be voted into existance (which includes ammendments to state constitutions).

A good example to help you understand better how our democracy truly works, as oppossed to the description of it as "majority rules", is this: Lets say I decided to put a measure on the ballot to outlaw all hand guns in the state of California. I only need a certain amount of signatures to make it an official proposition. I can very easily get enough signatures in one week by standing on corners in Berkeley, San Francisco, Hollywood and Santa Cruz. So now it goes onto the ballot and it narrowly passes because California has more hippys than hunters in it. Well, the majority of the state has spoken, right? Now everyone must surrender their hand guns and retailers through the state must close down, correct?

Wrong!

It is unconstitutional to not put a measure on the ballot if it collected enough signatures. It is also unconstitutional to pass a state law which is in conflict with the federal constitution, and despite the fact that the majority of Californians have spoken loudly about handguns, the majority of gun haters may not vote away the rights of the minority of gun lovers. Americans have the right to bare arms, period. The courts will have to over rule the measure and enforce the rights of the minority in such a case. Gun haters will scream that the judges are activists, and they will accuse the gun lovers of being whiners and anarchists, but the simple fact is the proposition was unconstitutional because American Democracy has always been based upon the concept of "justice and freedom for ALL". It has never been based upon the concept of "justice and freedom for the MAJORITY".

So, now you see why Proposition 8 must be over turned by the courts, even if Mormons and rednecks unite and march in the streets. The judges must do their sworn job, and that is to enforce the United States Constitution. If the majority does not like the judges doing their jobs the way they are sworn to do, the majority has the constitutional right to vote for politicians who will be more sympathetic to their agenda. However, the new judges will be sworn to the same duty of enforcing the Constitution, and the cycle will go on and on. See how smart our founding fathers were?

No matter what ones personal bigotrys are, the majority may never take away the rights of the minority; not as long as our proud flag waves and the constitution is upheld in the great American spirit that has made us home of the free.

John

I wasn't sure just which way that train of thought of yours was a goin'!

But it all seemed to work out correctly in the end.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The error in the public's judgement, as I believe they will soon find out when this is settled in the courts, is that American democracy has never been based upon the concept of "majority rule". This is a common mistake and over simplification of how our democracy works and has worked through out history. If our democracy was based upon "majority rule", interacial marriage would have not been permitted because at the time that it was legalized by the courts, 90% of "the people" had voted to not allow such marriages. However, because American Democracy is based upon our constitution, not upon the sentiments or social prejudices of the masses, laws which contradict the federal constitution cannot be voted into existance (which includes ammendments to state constitutions).

A good example to help you understand better how our democracy truly works, as oppossed to the description of it as "majority rules", is this: Lets say I decided to put a measure on the ballot to outlaw all hand guns in the state of California. I only need a certain amount of signatures to make it an official proposition. I can very easily get enough signatures in one week by standing on corners in Berkeley, San Francisco, Hollywood and Santa Cruz. So now it goes onto the ballot and it narrowly passes because California has more hippys than hunters in it. Well, the majority of the state has spoken, right? Now everyone must surrender their hand guns and retailers through the state must close down, correct?

Wrong!

It is unconstitutional to not put a measure on the ballot if it collected enough signatures. It is also unconstitutional to pass a state law which is in conflict with the federal constitution, and despite the fact that the majority of Californians have spoken loudly about handguns, the majority of gun haters may not vote away the rights of the minority of gun lovers. Americans have the right to bare arms, period. The courts will have to over rule the measure and enforce the rights of the minority in such a case. Gun haters will scream that the judges are activists, and they will accuse the gun lovers of being whiners and anarchists, but the simple fact is the proposition was unconstitutional because American Democracy has always been based upon the concept of "justice and freedom for ALL". It has never been based upon the concept of "justice and freedom for the MAJORITY".

So, now you see why Proposition 8 must be over turned by the courts, even if Mormons and rednecks unite and march in the streets. The judges must do their sworn job, and that is to enforce the United States Constitution. If the majority does not like the judges doing their jobs the way they are sworn to do, the majority has the constitutional right to vote for politicians who will be more sympathetic to their agenda. However, the new judges will be sworn to the same duty of enforcing the Constitution, and the cycle will go on and on. See how smart our founding fathers were?

No matter what ones personal bigotrys are, the majority may never take away the rights of the minority; not as long as our proud flag waves and the constitution is upheld in the great American spirit that has made us home of the free.

John

That's why it's a representative republic instead of a democracy. Good for you, John.

 

[jrobert484]

This is a great article about Proposition 8 and Ken Starr.

http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4468