Gay Marriage: Put into it's proper perspective

You need to read to the end.

How big does the print have to be for you to acknowledge the court's final instruction on the law?

Concede. Or don't. As far as I'm concerned, the case is proved beyond any doubt against you. All you have is repetition of a failed argument. If you won't come to your senses and acknowledge reality, then there really is nothing more to say on the matter.

 

Doesn't say that it only applies to gay individuals and gay couples.

Explaining why Prop 8 has a suspect purpose. Nothing about limiting marriage to gay people.

Further explaining why the purpose of Prop 8 is suspect. Nothing about limiting marriage to gay people.

Further explaining why the purpose of Prop 8 wasn't legitimate. Nothing about limiting marriage to gay people.

Explaining the court's conclusion that orientation constitutes a suspect class and requires the application of strict scrutiny. Nothing about limiting marriage to gay people.

Concluding that Prop 8 fails strict scrutiny. Nothing about limiting marriage to gay people.

^ The court's actual instruction of how the law must be applied. Not only is there nothing in there about limiting marriage to gay people, but it very explicitly says that the designation of marriage must be made available to same-sex couples. Not just gay couples, same-sex couples. What it does not say: That every same-sex couple qualifies. The court only removed the sex-based barrier, not any other barrier that might act to prevent same-sex couples (including but not limited to gay couples) from obtaining legal recognition of a marriage.

Give it up. Your argument is toast. Have the honesty and integrity to concede your error.

 

Of course.

 

Actually it does.

Actually its limiting its ruling to gay people. Only the denial of marriage to gay couples was found to violate the constitution. Single mothers and grandmothers wishing to marry arent a "suspect" class like the homosexuals. So no marriage rights for them.

Yes and each and every explanation is only applicable to gay couples.

Sooooo those outside of the "suspect class" of homosexuals dont have this right to marriage

 

Doesn't say anything to that effect.

Not a bit. This defines the scope of their ruling:

"Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the
constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the
language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between aman and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. "

Not what the court said. This is what the court said:

"we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional"

It is not hard to follow the logic that if limiting the designation of marriage to opposite sex couples (a man and a woman) is unconstitutional, that the denial of marriage to same sex couples (a man and a man, or a woman and a woman) is unconstitutional.

Outside the scope of the case. Prop 8 isn't the basis for their exclusion.

You're purposely confusing the path to finding Prop 8 unconstitutional with the effect of doing so. The path to getting there dealt with Prop 8 targeting a class of people for a suspect purpose. The effect, as stated in the court's final directive that I have quoted to you several times and which you won't address, was to instruct that the law cannot exclude people from the designation of marriage on the basis that the parties are the same sex. A couple who is of the same sex could still be excluded for other reasons. Failing to remove those other barriers doesn't constitute limiting the ruling to gay couples. Same-sex couples who aren't gay and aren't barred for some other reason are also covered by the ruling.

Not what the court said. No matter how you twist it, you can't get away from this, which you keep omitting:

Nothing in that directive limits the effect of the law to the suspect class targeted by Prop 8, and the directive explicitly includes the larger set of same-sex couples. That some same-sex couples are still barred for other reasons has nothing to do with this case, because they aren't being barred for the reason that they're a same-sex couple, and Prop 8 has no connection to those other barriers.

No one is that stupid that they can't read "same sex couples" in the court's final directive and understand that it means exactly what it says. However they can apparently be so incredibly biased that they'll lie about it.

This isn't a case of you not understanding the law or the court's ruling. It's a case of you practicing a deception that fools no one.

Concede.

 

Should Muslims not have rights ?

 

You mean like the right to stone someone to death for being gay? It's not a matter of if they should have those rights... in many Muslim countries, they do. But you seldom hear gays condemning the practice. Certainly not as much as you hear gays complain about gay marriage. Seems to be confused priorities.

 

Start a thread on it. And also consider how what happens in some Islamic nation affects gays here.

Why do homosexual couples pursue the right to marriage here (in America)? Think about it.

You should know the answer to your own query; it is dangling in front of you I suspect.

You seem to be confusing priorities yourself. Please, show that you have a clue.

 

I started a thread about it... this is it.

 

The premise of the OP is silly.

You can make this argument about every contemporary issue in America because there's a pretty darn good chance that somewhere in the world there are people who have it worse, be it about the death penalty, guns, medicine, jobs, food, civil rights, you name it.

 

You're right about that. Yesterday at 11:30 am, my handsome gay stepbrother died of AIDS at age 53. Trust me... gay marriage was the last thing on his mind.

 

I am very sorry to hear of your loss.

My maternal uncle, a gay man only a year or two older than your stepbrother and also suffering from AIDS, took his own life last year. While we'll never truly know what was going through his mind, he had been very vocal and involved with the gay equality movement towards the end of his life. He seemed to take the opposition and the homophobia wrapped up in it too personally. I had been a supporter of marriage equality for years before my mother told me about my uncle's sexual orientation and the fact that he and his long-time partner both suffered from AIDS(I had met his partner 8 years or so before my mother told me he was gay, and that was another 8 years or so before he took his life), but his death only strengthened my desire to see this issue play out to a positive ending.

My sincere condolences to you and your family.

 

While I'm sorry for your loss, your exploitation of it to make a political point is truly disgusting.

 

I'm sorry you find the news of his death disgusting. He was very fortunate the cocktail of drugs kept him reasonably healthy for the last 10 years and he never really suffered like so many of his friends. His passing was quick (heart attack) and although it was his choice to be estranged from the family, we'll all be gathering to pay the last respects.

Shame on gay men for not stressing safe sex as much as they do gay marriage. It's your responsibility to mentor young gay men... and not just about how unfair it is they can't get married. *boo hoo*

 

That's not what he said.

 

What a horrible thread it is.

 

What do you think we should be doing? Encouraging the family of homosexuals to teach their child to have same sex? Developing school programs that promote safe sex and the self esteeme of gay kids?

Is it even possible to do those things if the cultural stigma against homosexuality makes kids unwilling to speak openly with their parents about homosexuality? Is it possible if their parents will reject them after coming out? Is it possibl when the anti-gay crowd fights against the creation of gay youth groups? Is it possible when the stigma makes the child unwilling to accept their sexuality and openly attend those gay support groups? Is it possible when the stigma promotes low self-esteeme in gays, which in turn promotes drug use and unsafe sex?

If you dont fix the stigma, then you eliminate the mediums through which to promote safe sex in the first place. Reducing the stigma and promoting the self esteeme is the first step in promoting safe sex.

 

Sorry... did someone force you to post here?

 

Not at all what I said, and you know it. I guess we can add dishonesty to the list as well.

Shame on you for thinking it's somehow your place to lecture gay men on their responsibilities. Just who the Hell do you think you are? I am not your child, and I will not tolerate your condescension.

As for mentoring young gay men, you're quite mistaken - it's not my obligation or responsibility to do any such thing. I'm not their parent, and my being gay doesn't magically create such a responsibility. Moreover, young gay men do not want advice from someone nearing 50, especially on something personal like their sex lives.

None of which means I've turned my back on the problem or that I fail to support efforts to educate young gay men on the dangers of unsafe sexual practices. You assume too much, and resort to blanket condemnations of people who owe you nothing - including the explanation I've just provided.

I've half a mind to tell you to wake up and realize your own role in creating the problem, but I doubt you'd be receptive. Beyond that, anything else I'd like to tell you would probably get me suspended or banned. Suffice it to say that shooting off your mouth the way you do has a price: a loss of respect. When you show that you can respect me as an individual and your equal, then maybe we'll have something to talk about. Until then, consider our conversation terminated.

 

Please, get real.

 

A gay man nearing 50 and HIV negative is a very fortunate situation to be in. My brother and all his friends have either died from AIDS or are HIV+ in their early 50's. Very few gay senior citizens around. Hopefully the next generation of gay men won't be as reckless as this generation was... although without older gay men to mentor the young, I'm afraid they'll have the same 'it can't happen to me' attitude my brother's generation had.

I won't be posting on this thread again. Suffice it to say... education is the key to a healthier future for young gay men. Unfortunately, there's much more emphasis on frills like gay marriage than reminding young men it only takes one careless encounter to seal their fate. Just one final plea to you older guys to get involved in AIDS education. If you don't insist on it, it won't get done because NOBODY wants to talk about it.

I wish you all a long and healthy life.

 

I have a very hard time believeing anything smartmouth woman has to say. On the back up forum she made claims that were not true about transexuality and the procedure, and was quick to point out that the lady in question was pushing her lifestyle on her. Her comments were nothing more than a swipe at a lifestyle she knows nothing about. No wall of the sudden she has a gay uncle that has died of aids and she takes another swipe at a lifestyle she doesnt like. I am sorry but I highly doubt there is an uncle that has died of aids. Also by her comment that it all the other gays that did not warn her Uncle. Sorry but I tend to think she out and out lier. She is a prime case of look at me look at me!

 

I can count on one hand the number of gay men I've known who have been HIV positive. So let's dispense with this myth that the majority of gay men are or will become infected. Those who are HIV+ are a minority within the gay community. Which isn't at all meant to say that the numbers aren't disproportionate in comparison to other populations; this is indeed alarming. I'm simply saying those numbers shouldn't be exaggerated.

Younger gay men are receiving the message that older gay men are a rarity, and that those of us who survived are still probably all HIV positive. It's not true, and it's not helpful for you to be telling them that.

Here's what I find offensive - the blanket condemnation of an entire generation of gay men, as if we were all reckless and had an attitude that we were invincible. It just illustrates the complete inability some people have to view us as individuals.

That said, I also see zero attempt being made to understand how those attitudes arose in the first place. They're a product of our endless marginalization, which stigmatizing condemnation just serves to perpetuate. Until a lot more people recognize their role in creating an environment where gay men continue to receive the message that they and their lives have no value, the pace of change will be glacial. I also see no attempt being made to recognize that attitudes have shifted in much of the gay community.

I think there are a whole lot of people who are just plain clueless about what things are really like in the "gay community". For starters, we aren't some monolithic group. Attitudes in the gay community vary depending on many demographic factors; location, economic status, social status, experiences with supportive/non-supportive family, religious beliefs or the lack thereof, etc. etc. etc. - much like they do among straight people. I have more in common with the straight people in the community where I grew up than I do with a gay man who has lived most of his life in a big city like New York or San Francisco.

People are also clueless about the debate going on within the gay community between people who want to hold onto ideals and values that they think separate us from "straight society" and somehow make us 'superior', versus those of us who think there is only one society, and who seek our full integration into it. People who mourn the death of 'gayborhoods' and 'gay culture', versus those of us who think that while preserving and understanding our history has importance, we need to continue looking forward instead of celebrating our marginalization and trying to perpetuate it.

Suffice it to say, I take offense at the notion that we aren't making the effort, and we're doing so despite the attempts of many to block those efforts.

What this boils down to is an attempt to play on people's emotions with the end goal being not the education of young gay men, but to defeat our pursuit of marriage equality on behalf of that younger generation. You think it's about me and my marriage? I have zero expectation that my husband and I will ever enjoy legal recognition of our marriage in our lifetime. None whatsoever. We hope that the next generation of gay men will have not only the ability to legally marry their same-sex partners, but that they'll see it as an option that fits in with their values; values that go hand in hand with the personal responsibility needed to curb the spread of HIV.

So this idea that we're pursuing marriage equality at the expense of educating a younger generation of gay men about the dangers of HIV is an especially offensive lot of rubbish. I would dare to say that many of us see the two as inter-related - that there's a real need for gay men to be shown that their lives have value; that being gay and holding values that engender personal responsibility are not mutually exclusive, and that we have an equal place in our society and the institutions it holds dear - including marriage. Denying us the ability to marry tells us that we don't have a place in this society, that our lives don't have value, and that therefore we have no need for enduring relationships or values that engender personal responsibility.

In other words, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Not only do they not want to talk about it - they don't want anyone else to have the opportunity to talk about it either. That's a much bigger roadblock than this imaginary BS that older gay men aren't invested in AIDS education.

I'd like to return here to this notion that as an older gay man I have some obligation to mentor younger gay men. You might be able to effectively argue that our society as a whole has an obligation to educate the next generation - including the next generation of gay men, and including about the dangers of HIV infection. My point was and remains that my age and my 'gayness' are not factors that somehow impose any additional obligation on me.

It's also a notion utterly divorced from reality. Whatever generation gap exists between generations of straight people, I would assert that it's even bigger between generations of gay men. Even as early as my 30s it was made clear to me that gay men just a decade younger didn't think I had anything to teach them, no insights of value to them. It gets worse as the age gap widens. The younger generation of gay men thinks that all we have to offer is our own internalized homophobia, acquired from a lifetime of living in a society where it was perfectly acceptable to openly revile us. They aren't interested in lessons learned from such a life, because they think it has no relevance to their future. What's more, they view us as failures for our inability to secure any lasting legacy of equality for them despite the age of our movement. Some even think, without any understanding of a past so different from their present, that we screwed it all up for them by creating the HIV/AIDS crisis, squandering new found freedoms and thereby delaying the progress of our movement.

And that's a message they're receiving directly from the likes of you.

So do NOT presume to lecture me about my obligations to a younger generation of gay men. You're in absolutely on position to be making the judgments you have.

 

So now let's turn to the above statement.

"Last respects" is an interesting way of putting it. Maybe if he'd felt respected during his life, he wouldn't have made the "choice to be estranged from the family".

I suppose you'll think me extraordinarily cruel for saying that. But it highlights a reality that a lot of families don't care to face - that of their personal role in marginalizing gay people in society and even within their own families. I very nearly abandoned by own family. And yes, it would have been my choice, had I done so. But calling it "his choice" is a convenient way of avoiding having to look at your own actions and any role they played in his making that choice. Maybe you are blameless in all that. Maybe your were supportive but your best efforts were overwhelmed by the negativity between him and other family members. I can't pretend to know either way.

What I do know is that without respect there can be no trust, and without trust communication breaks down. Indifference and keeping distance aren't respect. Avoidance isn't respect, either. My family and I had become such experts at all three that their window into my life had shrunk to the point of being a peephole. Communication suffered because I felt I couldn't trust them with information about my life, because I felt they had not respect for me as a person. The ONLY reason that changed was because they wised up barely in time to keep from losing me entirely.

It's very easy to take an attitude that you'll maintain the relationship, so long as there's an understanding that you aren't going to deal with the gay part. You make that clear to your gay family member, and out of respect for your wishes, they begin editing their account of their life on your behalf, until it reaches a point where they figure it's easier to cut you loose and live freely. When it's all or most of a family taking that position, the more likely the person is going to make the choice to estrange themselves from the family. We stop attending family events because we've ceased to feel like we're really a part of the family. We stop calling home. We ignore emails, texts, phone calls, etc. It gives us the control to decide when, how and even if we'll bother to interact with family members.

I won't pretend to know why your stepbrother estranged himself from the family. But I'm sure he must have had his reasons, and those situations always have a common theme, whether 'the gay' is a factor or not. That theme is the breakdown of communication based on a breakdown in trust based on a breakdown of respect.

Last respects, indeed.

 

What a load of crap no-one has ever been killed any where for being Gay ,please try and at least base your posts on some truth ,people getting killed for being HAPPY in Iraq ,maybe through jealousy ,but not just because they were happy ,go on show me when and where people in Iraq have EVER been killed for being HAPPY ,Gay ,or Celebratory.

<<<Mod edit, PA>>>