South Africa's high court approves gay marriage
 

I am so ashamed of the US right now... we are hicks and deserve the rep now.

South Africa's high court approves gay marriage
Decision paves way for homosexual unions, a first for the continent


Updated: 8:46 a.m. ET Dec 1, 2005
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa - South Africa's highest court ruled Thursday it is unconstitutional to bar gay marriage, paving the way for this country to become the first in Africa to legalize homosexual unions.

Gay rights activists welcomed the ruling on a continent where homosexuality remains largely taboo.

In its ruling, the court gave the country's parliament a year to change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

"We were thinking we would be calling our friends today and inviting them to our wedding," said Fikile Vilakazi, of the Forum for the Empowerment of Women, who proposed to her partner more than six months ago. "Now they are asking us to wait another year."

South Africa recognized the rights of gay people in the constitution adopted after apartheid ended in 1994, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But married couples have numerous rights still denied gay couples, including the ability to make decisions on each other's behalf in medical emergencies, and inheritance rights if a partner dies without a will.

Marriage is defined in South Africa's common law and Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman. The Constitutional Court has instructed Parliament to add the words "or spouse" to the definition within a year, or else the change will automatically be effected by the courts.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

And what rep is that exactly?

Good for them! Now... for the rest of the world...

Its sad that an African nation is more progressive and free than America is.

^ That rep.

With all the other shit we need to fix around here, gays being able to make medical decisions for each other ranks pretty low on the list of importance. Unless you talk to a liberal politician of course, in which case it's far more deserving of our attention than other things they'd rather we not pay attention to. Patterns anyone?

I'd say basic human rights and equality ranks pretty damn high on MY list of what needs fixing around here.

It is a symptom of how little we care for the basics when it comes to human rights.
We used to lead the world in compassion, now we are the measure of how not to be.

Yes, because America is so much better than Africa in every way...right?

No, but America has a history of (and often brags about) supposed progressiveness and freedom, and for the most part, lots of African nations... well, don't.

Within my lifetime, South Africa was a slave state... now they lead us in progressive policy, while we have fallen to the point to resembling Germany/Russia of the twenties and thirties in many/most ways.
That is my point.

I thought it was obvious...for whatever that's worth...

Corrected.

I'd be happy if liberal politicians were on the ball, but at the moment it's only the activists.

Marriage isn't a human right, it's a fairness issue, but not a human rights issue.

Well, that's OK then.

Yeah. Fairness isn't the least important.

Fuck fairness.

We're America, we don't have to be fair, because God is on our side.
(Repeat, but substitute Jewish, Islamic dieties, then have all kill each other.)

Being treated fairly and equally, not being discriminated against, IS a human right, and it is completely unacceptable to deny anything to someone based on their sex.

Fuck fairness is exactly the mindset of America today, it frustrates me to no end. However, gay marriage is not the most pressing issue in this catagory. We have problems with education, health care, taxes, social security, immigration, the list goes on and on. The ultimate in fairness is ideal libertarianism, but there is a big enough bleeding heart population here to rule that out. Fairness is letting the crack addict freeze to death on the street. Fairness is taking kids away from incompetent parents so they have a decent shot at life. Fairness is mother taking a screaming kid around to all the tables in the restaurant to apologise and humble themselves on threat of spanking. Fairness is tough and heartless, and frankly most people don't have the guts to be fair. Fair means equal exchange in all cases, no inherent rights, tough titty for you if you f*ck things up.

It is: because a certain political party is making it a pressing issue. Can you guess which one?

Both are, leftists are pressing for the laws to be passed and rightists are pushing back with equal pressure.

No, rightwing nutjobs are trying to get it BANNED, and leftwing commies, with the exception of a few activists, are doing jack shit.

I don't see how its not being "the most important issue" is relavant... that is really confusing to me.
We can do only one thing at at time?
It is a human/civil rights issue.
Partners not being able to share in the suffering at a hospital, deal with taxes together, be a family legally, share in all aspects that all other families do because others (who have no business sticking their noses into their lives) want to have a say, say so... is definitely a violation of their civil rights.

Don't bring the tired argument of "you can't stick your nose into my life", if what you do affects me, I have every right to get involved in your buisness. Does this affect me, absolutely. I can make the choice of whether I agree with the changes or not, but don't delude yourself that anything people do has no effect on others.

How does it affect you?

It might be a fairly pressing issue for gay Americans.

???
 

Please do elaborate on the terrible impact gay marriage will have, on your life.

I'd be curious to hear an answer as well. How does this affect you?

Conservative politicians are. Gay citizens are. Liberal politicans are not.

Yep, old 9 was in and out today...and didn't answer this question. Typical.

Saw it and :bolt:

(Here's where I get called a bleeding heart commie or something.)

Nice to see shawnee chomping at the bit there, at least I'm not being ignored. The first thing I'd address is that the effect doesn't have to be really damaging for me to be involved in it. If it doesn't hurt me then I won't say nay, but all it has to do is impact me in some way for me to want a say in it. The most obvious way it impacts me is the very things people say they want, you're now introducing a large new group of people entering systems they've never been a part of. That will impact me through new obligations (I've actually already had to attend seminars on gay/trans workplace dymanics), increases in fees to cover new obligations of companees, and in other obvious ways. This isn't really what most people talk about of course when they say it will impact them, and frankly it isn't the majority of what I care about. But I needed to make an interm post here while frantically throwing all my stuff into duffle bags for my trip home (Thanksgiving break), lest shawnee's sentiments snowball and ruin any chance at an honest response.

Typical conservative.... it always comes back to the dollars.

Must have been tough seeing the whiteboard at that seminar with the blinders on...

Hmmm... so gay marriage wouldn't be so much, say, an evil threat Satan has devised to destroy all that is good and Holy, as it would be more of, you know, kinda inconvenient. Well, in that case, fuck those f@ggots, right? Am I right, or am I right? And while we're at it, let's take those ni66ers back down a few notches, right? I mean, more for me! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!

*chuckles*

And also, let's increase the cost of attending university while we're at it. I'm sick of subsidising education for morons.

Darling baby, if I were chomping at your bit you would know it. :cool:

In the meantime, get back with me when you've been at least halfway around the block.

Also, why is it always ME you retort to...with all the gaff you've received over your posts the only one you have the balls to call out is me. Do you find me harmless? Do you think me weak? You have another think coming.

Maybe it's the net. equivalent of pulling your pigtails?:P

Yeah, well I'm gonna go home and tell my dad. :rolleyes:

lol

9th and Shawnee sittin in a tree,
k.i.double s.i.n.g.

First comes love, then comes marriage,
Then comes 9th with a baby carriage!

:lol:

I know you are but what am I?

If approaching the situation with a pragmatic attitude constitues blinders, then yes. This issue is no exception to the 'question everything and make few assumptions and generalizations' rule.

Do you prefer arguments centering around theologics? It's a plus minus, pro/con issue like everything else, there will be good things and also negative consequences associated with it. I have no idea why people think the issue of fairness somehow has an infinite positive weight attached to it, it's a plus, but far from huge.

I don't think I pay any special attention to shawnee, although when poked I poke back, and she's definately in the group that takes jabs at people around here.


Anyway, I say that gay marriage affects me because it is designed to, really. If the idea was the gays would be handed marriage licences and NOTHING would leave the house would you be satisfied? A big part of this deal is bringing everything public now, into the workplace, schools, and society in general. I'd definately say that affects me. People are making the assumption that changes must be maliciously damaging to count, the money comment even assumes I should be happy to hand over more money without even considering it as an effect.
I'll lay something on the line here, fairness doesn't count for alot with me. Our society is so decrepit that we're not even past fixing basic injustices and pathetic behavior much less ready to make life fair. We've been in a regression for decades now, we started with a huge lead but our progess is pityful. China is now the #2 economy in the world, we're known for our TV, not our technology or innovations. I posted something on 'fairness' a while back so I won't repeat it here, but 99/100 Americans are far too weak willed to ever be much use in a fair and just society.
So a man not being able to sign medical papers for his lover just does not matter to me in the face of all of our other problems, really, it's not important to me. As a staunch pragmatist I do not have the excess time or energy to deal with all this emotional dithering.

Sure 9th, everyone else is wrong and you are right.

Leave me out of your posts, I'm starting to think you're hot for me.

Mr Educated? The words are spelled "definitely" and "a lot". Also, this sentence makes absolutely no grammatical sense:
Fine eduation you're working on. Tech Center?

Let me guess, you're in the top 1%? Thank the Lord we have people like you on earth. Whew:

I'll call him...mini-dick

What negative consequences?
How is it "designed to" affect you?
How does it "definately" [sic] affect you?
It's easy to be callous, from a distance, isn't it?
How, specifically, do you have to "deal with" this?

You're the only one I take jabs at, 9th dearie-poo since your equally closed-minded friend was scared away. Everyone else I get along with quite well.

You didn't list any ways that it would affect you yet. You won't have to attend any gay marriage seminars; any "workplace dynamics" or other diversity stuff will be there regardless of gay marriage. Bringing everything public will also happen with or without marriage. All "obligations" that companies have to married couples are already there, so there would be no change needed to recognize a few more, any more than there would if a few more straight couples got married. With the decrease in straight marriage, it would probably be a wash over the last 30 years, in fact.Nobody's asking you to care; you're the one who claimed that it would affect you and reserved the right " to get involved in [the gay marriage] buisness". In fact, not caring and supporting are the two legitimate positions to take, because if you don't support it, it won't affect you.

Well then if it's not important to you, why should the rest of society give a shit huh?

I have yet to see any evidence that you are a pragmatist, staunch or otherwise.

Whether gay marriage is legal or not isn't going to affect the fact that you'll have to attend equality seminars just like everyone else.

If your argument is that gay marriage and the associated rights which will be available to gay married people will be a financial burden on you, imagine how all the gay people who have not had access to these services and rights and yet have still had to pay a portion of their taxes to provide for others who have excercised their right to marry might feel.

It works both ways.
(pardon the pun)

What I am getting from this is that 9th is bothered by the fact that he will be "asked" to be nice to gays now. He is bitching far more about that than the money.
Also, he cares a great deal about this or he would not be posting about it.
Finally, nothing to back-up all the doom-&-gloom from anyone about what will actually happen if gays are given rights... just "something will be different"
Change sure is s-s-s-s-c-c-caaaarrrryyyyyy!

So HOW does it affect you and HOW is it designed to affect you? What does that means? Obviously when people no longer need lie, then it affects you - positively. Gay marriage is a good thing for you? Why? Will you then come out of a closet?

So, 9th, youre saying its okay for STRAIGHT people to be married and let things, as you put it, leave the house, for straight people to be publicly and lovingly married, but not gay people?
That's called discrimination.
Homophobe.

& remember where homophobia comes from....

Wow, nothing like a argument about gay marriage to bring out the underhanded attacks eh? Everyone who disagrees with you on gay marriage must be gay right? Just like everyone who opposes the Bush administration's policies are America-hating terrorists. I'm going to settle this once and for all, and if by the time I'm done you still think I hate gays then the issue is beyond further reconciliation.

Lets repeat a few ground rules, first of all I consider this a financial dispute. If gays want to shack up together and do whatever they please, I don't care about it. Secondly, 'gay-ness' is restricted to a persons sexual attractions, I will define this in more detail in a moment. Third, I can disagree with you without hating you, the very fact that I have to say that shows how low the 'intellectuals' posting on this have sunk.

Lets define what sexuality is since some very strange definitions have been floating around. Sexuality revolves around the desire to copulate, in humans this is not limited to the desire to have children so don't bend the issue. Your sexuality does not dominate other things such as your intelligence, your personality, your social skills, your likes/dislikes, ect. What I mean by that is that a person and their sexual desires are not one and the same, the later is simply one small component of the former. Therefore when we discuss sexuality we are not discussing people, unless of course you believe that humans are consumed by their sexuality and lose their free will. What I am saying is that sexuality is subservient to the greater whole of the individual.
Sexuality is also obviously not the same as anatomy, by which I mean that it is actually a chemical process. Because sex is by nature an emotional experience we tend to attribute more to it than can be confirmed by a careful analysis. In truth it's possible to separate it from the idea of love, although the two chemical pathways are obviously linked somehow. Romanticism only clouds the issue in this case however since lets not kid ourselves that we're going to be able to define what is probably the most written about and diverse topic in history other than religion. What we are left with are combinations of chemical triggers which lead to the desire to copulate as defined above, nothing more or less is concrete. So in essence this is an argument about a chemical system which induces pleasure, nothing different there from the same system in heterosexuals. All other chemical systems in the body are viewed as just that, chains of biochemical reactions. With that in mind, everything else that stems from that idea and references to similar biochemical systems are relevent to this entire argument.

Now lets move on to what rights are under contention here. We'll keep it to the legal parts of being married since we could debate 'image' until we wither and die without reaching a consensus. One argument was that gay couples should be treated like married couples when it comes to healthcare decisions and legal issues. Guess what? They already do. Although the automatic line of power goes first to family in the absence of a spouse, anyone can name anyone else as their medical proxy through an advanced directive. (Everyone should actually do this). The idea of someones gay partner not being able to visit them in the hospital is rediculous in and of itself since that wouldn't even come into play outside of someone within the ICU in critial condition, but a medical proxy holds ALL powers of decision regarding that persons health. Through a will and an advanced directive a gay person can give their partner every power that a spouse would have and there is nothing anyone can do to change it.(The family would not be able to successfully sue or have it overruled). Legal issues are the same, the partner need only be give power of attorney to make all decisions neccessary.

Another argument is that gays face discrimination in the workplace. I'm not even sure how this pertains to marriage, it's a legal issue which is already covered in many states and is spreading.

Therefore we are left with the access to government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies.

In the end, when I balence the pros vs the cons of this decision that's what I'm taking into account. You are elevating simple desire to godlike proportions, liberal application of Occam's Razor is neccessary here.

So, that's the logic trail. Laws should be built on precident, science, and logic, not emotions. Now that I've said my peace I have nothing more to add.

I think we touched a nerve

Okay... so from your perspective, you believe that it would cost both the government and insurance-paying-citizens more if there were more marriages--regardless of whether they are straight or gay--and thus you're not in favor of anything that might unecessarily increase the number of marriages? Is that correct?

If one is unconscious, in ICU or something similar, only immediate family... parents, brothers, sisters or their spouse is allowed to visit.
A will to non-immediate family when immediate family exists is easily contested.
If is difficult in some states and impossible with some companies to have insurable interest with a non-spouse on many types of policies (I have an insurance license and know of what I speak).
Finally, when they adopt children to raise them because those kids need good parents and no one with a heart wants anything for those kids but for them to have parents... it is better for them to have all of the above as a couple and as parents.
All of your arguments are transparent & not very well thought-out.

No they don't.So, your argument is that given enough money for legal fees, a gay couple can duplicate any benefits of marriage that they think of ahead of time, which straight couples can take for granted?
And that's ridiculous because...?That's not true, and a simple google can tell you why.
It doesn't, which is why gay marriage won't affect you. You'll have to go to diversity training whether or not gays get married.Also joint adoption, joint parenting, and legal standing as a family member in court cases, among hundreds of other federal and state-level benefits.

Wouldn't it be logical then, to either do away with the benefits heterosexual marriages enjoy, or extend those benefits to same-sex marriages?

9th, there is NO way at ALL in which forbidding gays to marry is not sexism and homophobia. It is discrimination, plain and simple. Seperate but equal is not going to cut it. I will settle for nothing short of full legal equality and cessation of discrimination based on gender.