National protest against Prop 8 - Sat. 11/15, 1:30, Dover

Abuela · #1 11-14-2008, 12:01 AM

A group called Join the Impact (Join the Impact - Protest Prop 8 on November 15th! ) has organized a national day of protest against Proposition 8.

Delaware's protest is in Dover at the Mayor's Office, at 1:30pm. Dover - Join the Impact: Find Your City

I know that there are many of you here who believe that two adults who love each other should have the same right to the legal protection and recognition of their relationships no matter what sex either of them happens to be. I hope you will choose to join with others on Saturday to add your voice to the thousands and maybe millions across our country who will be joining in at exactly the same time to say NO to this type of discriminatory legislation, the same type of discriminatory legislation that made our next President's parents' marriage illegal in 1/3 of our country until 1967. Just because more people voted yes doesn't make it right.

I hope to see you there.

M.Opaliski · #2 11-14-2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abuela

Just because more people voted yes doesn't make it right.

Good luck in your endeavor but, if more people would have voted the other way on Prop 8 would that have made it right ?

*Sort of shooting your own argument in the foot, no ?

Abuela · #3 11-14-2008, 12:10 AM

Laws sanctioning discrimination against people by race passed by majority rule time and time again in this country. That doesn't make them right. Laws that create governmental approval for discrimination are never right.

M.Opaliski · #4 11-14-2008, 03:32 AM

Seems you missed the point I was making above, that or you simply overlooked it in favor of your own argument and then reinforced race as an issue in the discussion whereas race isn't an issue here, in this discussion.

Discrimination in this case is a buzz word, it's used to add emotion or 'weight' in the hopes to further the position that you're seeking. Discrimination exists in every aspect of our lives, in everything we do, so much so that I'm using it now with the choice of words, discriminating agaist some and for others but, it's still just a word.

Suppose that Prop 8 had failed, meaning that more people discriminated for the Precedent that was set by the California Supreme Court when they overturned what the people of California voted for when they passed Prop 22 a few years ago (assuming that you're familiar), are you following this, a discriminating act by the Court in that they chose to discriminate against the people that voted for it (Prop 22) and in turn discriminate for those who didn't. That's a lot of discrimination floating around isn't it ?

My goodness, someone should be outraged.

The point here, discrimination is always both for, and against 'something', so how can it possibly carry any more weight on your side of the issue than on the other side. And that logic applies to situations and scenarios that are far removed from anything we're discussing here. However let's keep on point, sort of. How about this, some folks in Utah would like to marry as many people as they like but they can't, does the discrimination that you employ in your argument also apply to them, and if so are those Government sanctioned discrimination laws wrong as well ?

Personally I don't care if you get married, and when I say 'you' it's directed at no one in particular, that's not so much my concern because nothing that you can do is going to effect my marriage. My concern, as it relates to the California case, Prop 22, their Supreme Court, Prop 8, et al, is that you have a Court making legislative decisions that belong in the hands of both the people and in turn, their Representatives in the California Legislature.

My other concern, on a much broader scale mind you is where does it end ?

A man and a woman, two men or two women, two men and two women, three women, a man and six women, a woman and four men, who is right ?

I fully understand that society evolves, things change, laws change, I get it. I'm not against amending laws, it happens every day, I get it.

BillW · #5 11-14-2008, 05:43 AM

What's the point - is it an issue here, I don't rember voting for or against in the 4th.

Tracy · #6 11-14-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.Opaliski

My other concern, on a much broader scale mind you is where does it end ?

A man and a woman, two men or two women, two men and two women, three women, a man and six women, a woman and four men, who is right ?

I fully understand that society evolves, things change, laws change, I get it. I'm not against amending laws, it happens every day, I get it.

Slippery slope...ok

IMHO, one would have to stop and look at marriage in general if you are going to use a slippery slope argument. If a man and woman are going to get married....why not all the people you've named?

Me personally, I feel that as long as all parties are willing to enter the agreement, are human beings (no sheep please) and are over the age of eighteen, than it's none of my business and it's none of the government's business either.

Abuela, thank you for letting us know about the National protest. If I did not already have prior plans, I would love to attend.

M.Opaliski · #7 11-14-2008, 09:27 AM

I'll agree with you in part Trace, the Government really should have no role in marriage, perhaps consider everything a 'Union' and drop the other language altogether. At least that's closer to a real world definition that could suit everyone rather than try to make everyone fit under an umbrella that wasn't intended for them. That's how people get wet.

But you answered my one question if I'm following you correctly, on where it ends, according to you it doesn't ...

Tracy · #8 11-14-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.Opaliski

I'll agree with you in part Trace, the Government really should have no role in marriage, perhaps consider everything a 'Union' and drop the other language altogether. At least that's closer to a real world definition that could suit everyone rather than try to make everyone fit under an umbrella that wasn't intended for them. That's how people get wet.

But you answered my one question if I'm following you correctly, on where it ends, according to you it doesn't ...

no....it really wouldn't....why limit how many people or who you marry as long as they are able to enter into a contract? children and animals again, would not be in their right minds to do that.

I personally would never want to enter into a group marriage, but neither would I want to enter into any kind of marriage, so you may not want to go by me.

BillW · #9 11-14-2008, 06:17 PM

Thanks Tracy

"if there are issues or people (hillary clinton) that you don't have an opinion about, it's not necessary to post you know".

I would say to you that if there are issues or people that you or anyone else post about don't expect everyone to agree with you.

The red comment was very childish on your part, but I won't die from it.

Tracy · #10 11-14-2008, 08:27 PM

just to clarify again the point is, it has NOTHING to do with whether you agree with me or anyone else. It has EVERYTHING to do with the respect you give whoever took the time to start a thread by actually sitting down to type out a well thought out reply.

I'm sorry that you thought that the neg rep I gave you was childish...take comfort in that fact that broadcasting to the whole forum was on a much lower maturity level.

National protest against Prop 8 - Sat. 11/15, 1:30, Dover

Government & Politics