Prop 8 represented the people voting on whether a particular class of people deserved equal rights under the law. Would you be as willing to accept such a matter if the vote had been about the rights of people or color? Or the right of anyone to enter into an interracial marriage?
A government that thinks it valid to hold a vote as whether some of its citizens are as human as some of its other citizens does not deserve the honor of representing anyone.
I do not buy into that argument that you state above. By that I mean that I do not think anyone on either side (other than maybe a minority of extremists) are declaring that Gays are not human as non Gays. But I'll leave it at that for the sake of not getting into a heated argument or possibly being misunderstood which is never a good thing. I stand by my opinion in my comment.
The law says I am not allowed to marry. Why is that? It's not because the law treats me as an equal.
Those who fight against gay marriage say it is because my getting married would be the same as marrying a dog.
As others have said, please educate yourself: about the purpose and history of the US courts, about the systematic dehumanization of sexual and other minorities throughout US and world history, and about your damn privilege.
Not so. You can marry anyone you wish. Whether the it is sanctioned by government should be left up to the majority of it's citizens. I mean, if you were to marry a dog ... haha But really, I simply to not agree with your logic in this.
Someone I know brought this up online - others I know are trying to educate them and their partner. I am banning them both, because they are being obstinate and sticking to their initial statements.
The great thing about the Internet, usually, is that you can't touch the people on the Internet and they can't touch you. Which is to say, it's in everyone's best interest to avoid threats of even cartoon violence. These things are too easily misunderstood, and this journal is too often a target of intense hostility for me to encourage such.
Rhetorically-based, metaphorical evisceration, however, is always welcome.
yes, but it's less fun when they can't respond and display their further stupidity. :D Nevertheless, point taken (and apology extended), with only minor pouting. I'm too happy. :D
I was just waiting for the "you're free to marry anyone of the opposite gender" line, because I have BEEN the opposite gender in that arrangement, and I would have handed him his (metaphorical) liver.
I was thinking about the bit about "especially an unelected [judge]," and the fact that, unelected or not, he was appointed by an elected representative of the people. And that judges (esp at that level) _have_ to be not elected, because otherwise they have to bow to majority opinion to stay elected, which defeats their ability/function to review laws without bias, etc.
But that's probably too complicated, as it requires having at least high school civics background, which that idiot (clearly a wingnut troll) doesn't have.
While I'm all for the banning, I feel bound to point out that immediately above the quote, you mentioned the dog comparison. Rejecting it, but mentioned it.
I love how really, they completely failed to address your point that the law is about the rights of the people. What exactly is 'you're free to marry whoever you like except it's not sanctioned by the government' supposed to mean, anyway? Willful ignorance of the legal nature that society has given marriage doesn't change the fact that barring same-sex marriage is taking away the rights of citizens.
What exactly is 'you're free to marry whoever you like except it's not sanctioned by the government' supposed to mean, anyway?
I think it's that stupid libertarian argument that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, society shouldn't recognize unions, married couples shouldn't get extra benefits, and it would only be a church thing.
Mild objection: I don't think it's a stupid argument, in to theory. I'd love to have a system in which you could register a next-of-kin to get the benefits and rights, and it wouldn't even have to be a romantic partner.
However, that's not the system we have. With our current system, some couples do get special benefits and rights, and as long as we give those benefits to some families we discriminate by not awarding them to all.
Okay, someone paying more attention than me (and more trustworthy than you in this discussion), found that yes, I brought up the anti-gay beastiality argument issue first. So, on that, you were right, and I do apologize there; it muddled what discussion we were able to have.
That said, your words were still hateful and showed an ignorance of even a fifth-grade civics class level of understand of judicial function and the structure of our republic (yeah, it's technically a republic).
So, you didn't bring up the dogs first. But, still banned.
If you can't marry someone legally, then you don't get the legal benefits that marriage has to offer. While the marriage may have emotional meaning, it doesn't carry the same meaning that a legal marriage does.
By law, rmcannot marry who she wishes. The 'by law' part is important.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 09:46 pm (UTC)A government that thinks it valid to hold a vote as whether some of its citizens are as human as some of its other citizens does not deserve the honor of representing anyone.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 09:53 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 09:54 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 09:56 pm (UTC)Those who fight against gay marriage say it is because my getting married would be the same as marrying a dog.
As others have said, please educate yourself: about the purpose and history of the US courts, about the systematic dehumanization of sexual and other minorities throughout US and world history, and about your damn privilege.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 10:08 pm (UTC)Not so. You can marry anyone you wish. Whether the it is sanctioned by government should be left up to the majority of it's citizens. I mean, if you were to marry a dog ... haha But really, I simply to not agree with your logic in this.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 10:11 pm (UTC)When you do not recognize the rights of the minority, you misunderstand the essential bounding traits of our democracy.
And when you laugh in my face when discussing civil rights, you embarrass yourself.
You are no longer welcome here. Please leave. Comment again and I will ban you.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 10:13 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 10:15 pm (UTC)You brought it up, and now you're banned.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 10:25 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 11:35 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 10:29 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 10:33 pm (UTC)And yes, well done!
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 10:40 pm (UTC)Rhetorically-based, metaphorical evisceration, however, is always welcome.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 10:41 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 10:51 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 11:12 pm (UTC)But that's probably too complicated, as it requires having at least high school civics background, which that idiot (clearly a wingnut troll) doesn't have.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 11:11 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 11:12 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 11:36 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 11:42 pm (UTC)I think it's that stupid libertarian argument that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, society shouldn't recognize unions, married couples shouldn't get extra benefits, and it would only be a church thing.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-05 10:40 am (UTC)However, that's not the system we have. With our current system, some couples do get special benefits and rights, and as long as we give those benefits to some families we discriminate by not awarding them to all.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over&a
Date: 2010-08-04 11:15 pm (UTC)That said, your words were still hateful and showed an ignorance of even a fifth-grade civics class level of understand of judicial function and the structure of our republic (yeah, it's technically a republic).
So, you didn't bring up the dogs first. But, still banned.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-05 12:18 am (UTC)By law,