Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

[jinx]

They don't get any perks Merc?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

They don't get any perks Merc?

Few if any of substance.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by jinx

Why do we (european settlers) make restitution to the native peoples of our lands? Is it because we realize we violated their natural rights?
They certainly didn't have any rights constructed within our society.... so fuck em right?

The US constitution defines some of the rights that government may not infringe upon, and others that it may protect. It does not grant any rights.

One group invades another and takes what they want, including rights. The right to live in peace. The right to a heritage. The right to culture.

Did they have those rights in the first place? Were they natural, or did those things evolve as time went on into something that the people took for granted till they were no longer possible?

It's the group with the power that has the rights. Natural or otherwise, it matters not. If you have no power, you have no rights.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Radar

I could give less than a shit about your opinion, or that of other douche nozzles like classicman. Your mean nothing to me.

Well well well. At least I have enough class to dislike you while still maintaining the opinion that your opinion still matters and I recognize you have been given the right to that opinion. Lucky for you, you live in America so that you can spout your drivel. Unfortunate for the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Radar

For the record, you gave up trying to have rational discussions with anyone before you ever started having conversations, and you aren't in a position to call anyone an idiot, especially your intellectual, social, and moral superiors like me.

Bwahahhahahha - funny part is that you actually believe it. You truly are a legend in your own mind.

Originally Posted by Juniper

That was sarcasm.

He doesn't usually catch that.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Juniper

Oh shit, hang on - you're actually saying that voting against gay marriage is equivalent to murder?

I am debating with a madman.

Well, I was warned, and I didn't listen, eh?

Many people reach enlightenment in disputation with Radar, just not the way Radar intends.

Congratulations Juniper.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Remember that when you're dealing with Radar you are dealing with a man as incapable of respect as he is of compassion. At best, he finds a refuge in his tortured understanding of legalism. At worst, a clever opponent cuts him off from that refuge and exposes his crankery for all to see, which is why Radar doesn't get respect. He's too flawed as a human being, and he writes to demonstrate his flaws, whether that was his intent or not.

[classicman]

Hawaii civil unions bill stalled

State Senate leaders are wavering on whether to revive a civil-unions bill by pulling it from committee and are discussing possible amendments to advance it while preserving the integrity of the committee process.
While senators may have reservations in private, a vote on the Senate floor would put them on the spot publicly, and a majority have told gay activists they support civil unions.

State Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, D-21st (Nanakuli, Makaha), said she would like Senate Democrats to come to a consensus. She said earlier reports that the Senate had the votes to pull the bill from committee and to pass it on the floor were accurate at the time. But she said some senators are now looking at other factors, including the importance of maintaining the committee process.

"My position is that we need to ensure that the Senate does not damage itself, and I'm talking about the relationships among senators, as a result of any action taken," Hanabusa said. "So I am going to explore as many of the potential possibilities to see if the Senate can reach a consensus."

Ultimately, a majority of senators can control the chamber. But the Senate is guided by internal rules and has only rarely voted to pull a bill that has stalled in committee. The Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee deadlocked 3-3 last month on the civil-unions bill.

The bill would give same-sex partners the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as married couples under state law. It would also recognize domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriages performed in other states as civil unions in Hawai'i.

The state House passed the bill last month in a 33-17 vote.

Some senators said privately that Senate leaders are having second thoughts because of the large demonstration against civil unions at the state Capitol last month and the thousands of telephone calls and e-mails urging them to drop the issue. Supporters of civil unions are also doing outreach, but it appears the opponents have had the momentum since the bill left the House.

State Sen. Will Espero, D-20th ('Ewa Beach, Waipahu), has proposed amending the bill as a compromise. He said he would convert the state's existing reciprocal beneficiaries law, which provides same-sex partners some of the same rights as marriage, into civil unions with additional rights.

His proposal would give same-sex partners more rights than they have now but not the identical rights as marriage under state law.

"The intent of the amendment is to find a win-win situation where both sides will feel better," he said. "(The civil unions bill) as voted on now would make one side extremely happy and the other side extremely sad and disappointed."

The amendment could help the bill win broader support in the Senate but would likely raise complications if the bill moves into conference with the House.

Gay activists have told lawmakers that civil unions already are a compromise because they are less than full marriage equality. Same-sex partners in civil unions would not be recognized like married couples under federal law and the partnerships would not be honored in states that do not recognize civil unions.

Some senators also question why an amendment is necessary when a majority has already indicated they support civil unions. Some suggest privately that senators are looking for political cover through an amendment or the committee process to avoid taking a public vote now that the issue has turned so contentious.

State Sen. Les Ihara, Jr., D-9th (Kapahulu, Kaimuki, Palolo), said the state Constitution included the procedure for pulling bills from committee to protect minority rights. Drafters of the constitution, he said, wanted to prevent the majority from freezing bills in committee when at least one-third of the chamber wanted to bring the bill to the floor for debate.

Ihara said a vote on pulling the civil-unions bill should happen even if a majority of senators are unable to reach consensus. "This is really about protecting minority rights in the constitution," he said.

Many of the leading opponents of civil unions met yesterday afternoon at the First Assembly of God Church in Red Hill to discuss strategy. Dane Senser, a victims' rights advocate, said he believes senators are feeling the pressure. The 15 1/2-hour committee hearing last month, where opponents outnumbered supporters in often emotional testimony, was a taste of the public sentiment.

"This thing should be killed immediately," Senser said.

[TGRR]

If religious people wish to restrict the rights of other people based on their religion (no matter how they dress it up, "definitions of marriage", etc), then perhaps we should take another look at their tax-exempt status.

TGRR,
Has made a point of being rotten to Mormons since they got involved in Prop 8.

[TheMercenary]

I don't agree with Prop 8 but they used the system to pass the ban and now if they otherside wants to fight it they will have to do the same. The other side of the coin in people who support majority rule.

[Sundae]

I had to bite my tongue in front of my parents just the other day re gay adoption. They used to have a green box in their kitchen in which they put all their loose change for St Francis Children's Homes. It's been there since I remember (a different box every year I hasten to add!) But the Church can't distribute or collect the full boxes any more, because the said charity has refused to comply to UK anti-discrimination laws. It will not allow Catholic children to be adopted by gay couples.

I'm pretty sure I've written about this before here. My parents believe it is the Govt sticking its nose into matters of faith. I believe it is the Church cutting its nose off to spite its face and is certainly NOT in the spirit of Jesus' teaching. He who broke so many taboos at the time. Not to mention of course the fact I don't believe in him and am tired of the, "this doesn't apply to me becos my God says..." reasoning.

My Dad is homophobic. Growing up poor, practically uneducated (due to poor schooling post War and dyslexia) in the post Blitz East End and with a harsh father and two older brothers, it's not all that surprising. Converting to Catholicism when he met and engaged Mum only gave him another reason for his prejudice. Funnily enough, Mum, who worked in the nursing, Ambulance and Police met more gay people than a dog has fleas. She accepts them as one of the anomalies God will sort out when she gets to Heaven.

And it has not affected me in any way growing up. I have had openly gay friends. And secretly gay friends. Somehow, like people with hidden or past eating disorders, people seem to realise they can confide in me.

The majority decision is not always right. Democracy was never meant to suggest that. Women would not have had the vote in this country when they did if democracy meant mob rule.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I don't agree with Prop 8 but they used the system to pass the ban and now if they otherside wants to fight it they will have to do the same. The other side of the coin in people who support majority rule.

Yes, but is it really fair for people to actively campaign and influence the outcome on a state ballot when they don't live in that state? I don't think so.

[classicman]

Once this passes, and I'm sure it will soon, that will mark the beginning of the "slippery slope." It will begin to pass in more and more states. Whether you agree with it or not isn't the issue. Those who are fighting it in CA are doing so preemptively to their own state.

On the other hand, Lobbyists do the same thing every day. So do groups like ACORN and a whole host of others... whats the difference with this, other than you disagree with them?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Yes, but is it really fair for people to actively campaign and influence the outcome on a state ballot when they don't live in that state? I don't think so.

Politics is not about "fair", it is about legal.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Once this passes, and I'm sure it will soon, that will mark the beginning of the "slippery slope." It will begin to pass in more and more states. Whether you agree with it or not isn't the issue. Those who are fighting it in CA are doing so preemptively to their own state.

On the other hand, Lobbyists do the same thing every day. So do groups like ACORN and a whole host of others... whats the difference with this, other than you disagree with them?

I believe we should get rid of lobbyists. They have completely polluted the political system.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Politics is not about "fair", it is about legal.

Sadly.