Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Gay marriages will save the economy"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Gay marriages will save the economy"

    I thought you might be amused by this proposition 8 musical, starring various TV greats (Neil Patrick Harris, CJ from the West Wing)... plus Jack Black as
    Spoiler:
    Jesus
    . Very sweet and funny.

    And, ya know... right, imo.

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0c...-rashida-jones

    Not that I condone capitalism or anything


    -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

  • #2
    I saw this last week and thought it was hilarious! Jack Black was great in it, and did you notice Sarah Chalke was in it, too? NPH was brilliant as always.
    Banner and avatar by Nina

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes! I was like...is that her...it is! I liked the humilty of big actors just playing little parts in it.

      I wish they'd got some Buffy people though, that would've been nice. Alison H would've been a funny religious rightist I think. She could do prim and disapproving really well. Though Alison Janney was brilliant.


      -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

      Comment


      • #4
        I guess a bit OT since it's not about the video, but regarding Proposition 8, it seems that now it's back to the courtroom:

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/...riage_lawsuits

        Also, on a somewhat less related note, the UN General Assembly is discussing a (non-binding, since it's the General Assembly) resolution calling for a decriminalization of same-gender sex, and one opposing it.

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081219/...xJu4MAzFRH2ocA
        Last edited by EvilVampire; 20-12-08, 11:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I tried to watch this ages ago but couldn't find it so thanks a bunch for the link!

          I personally think that it's ridiculous to have gay marriage be an issue of national debate since it's so hypocritical, even for the extreme right. This little snippet put it best. You can't ignore the parts of the bible you don't like and cling to the ones that don't actually effect you, which is what a lot of the extremest are doing. Not all, I'll grant you, but there seem to be more than enough who do. I won't argue for separation of church and state because I don't think that will ever really happen, but you can't base national policies on an idea that is so obviously driving us all apart.

          Before I say this, I want to state, for the record, that I in no way think that gay discrimination is as bad as slavery, I'm just showing an example of the worst case scenario:

          The last time a country was divided like this we went to war with each other, state against state. I for one don't think our country would go in for another ACTUAL civil war, and probably not over this issue, but the political civil war is pretty bad in and of itself. We, as a democratic nation, have no right to dictate who a person can and cannot love. And we should therefore offer the same rights to everyone, like our constitution says we should.

          That's my soapbox. Not as eloquent as I would have liked it, but there it is.

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree Casi. It's ludicrous how people cling to this idea that it's wrong because of their faith and yet they happily ignore other parts of the Bible, and the law is just as guilty as that. What it really boils down to is people thinking it’s wrong and trying to use their faith to validate their opinion.

            It’s such a contradiction for any country to say that all of it’s citizens are treated equal, yet they ban gay marriage. How is that equality?

            ~ Banner by Nina ~

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm glad people feel the same as me on this issue. I come from a small town in Texas and my parents just don't understand how I can support same sex marriage. I just hate how hypocritical people are. They want to protect marriage but yet divorce rate is what, 50%? Looks like they are failing at protecting it.

              Comment


              • #8
                My boyfriend is not a supporter of gay marriage and we had to pass a ban on the subject because it was almost a deal breaker. What it broke down to was that he is all for civil unions, but that by calling it marriage, which is the religious institution, you put it in the hands of the church, which clearly says no deal (even if it is contradictory and hypocritical). But then he follows it up with "it should be left in the hands of the states to decide" which says to me that he doesn't really support it. If he did, he wouldn't say "let the states decide," he would say "it should be legal."

                Hence the subject ban.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We don't really call it "Ehe" (marriage) in German, but rather "eingetragene Partnerschaft" (registered relationship), but colloquially it gets referred to as marriage.

                  In Switzerland it's up to the states (Z?rich has had it for somethign like 7 years now), in Austria it will probably be passed this year because the European Union demanded a legal solution.
                  Sin is what I feast upon
                  I'm forging my crematorium
                  Your tomb is waiting here for you
                  Welcome to my ritual

                  -Judas Priest, Death

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Constitutionally speaking, it should be up to the individual states in the US. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power to decide who can and can't married, therefore the 10th Amendment reserves that power to the states or to the people. 50 different states can go 50 different directions on who can marry just like they currently do on who can drive.
                    sigpic
                    Banner by LRae12

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The issue of states making up their own mind does pose a problem for federal rights. Obama seems committed to some kind of federal recognition of unions, though I'm not sure how quickly he's likely to act on that.

                      One option to provide more equal (though not totally equal) rights to gays and straights at a federal level is the Uniting Families Act, at least where immigration rights are concerned (selfishly what I care about most) to prevent "love exiles" - American people who have to choose between their partner and living in the US.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting...n_Families_Act

                      I'm not sure what chance it has of getting through though, given that it seems to have been put forward on numerous occasions.


                      -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That would be something that the federal government could do without any kind of constitutional amendment, since the federal government has plenery authority over immigration. Congress and Obama can also vote to revoke the Defense of Marriage Act, which was an act Bill Clinton passed which gave the states a marriage exemption from the Full Faith and Credit Clause* of the Constitution. If that were to happen, other states would have to recognize as valid the marriages performed in *any* other state, for instance Massachussetts. But, to actually define who can and cannot marry in the US, the federal government has no legitimate authority without a constitutional amendment.

                        It's current authority, (which ignores the 10th Amendment and is used to basically steal power from the states on a number of issues), is the 14th Amendment, which is a test I've talked you through before, and one which has yet to be applied to whether there is a fundamental right, the interference with which is per se 'unconstitutional', for same sex couples to marry. There is a generally acknowledged 14th Amendment right to marry (unqualified), under Loving v. Virginia, but states have and do still reserve the right to qualify that in a number of ways, most notably age.

                        *"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." (US Cons. Art IV, Sec 1)
                        sigpic
                        Banner by LRae12

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                          That would be something that the federal government could do without any kind of constitutional amendment, since the federal government has plenery authority over immigration.
                          It does seem to be a good stopgap at least, for that one issue.

                          If that were to happen, other states would have to recognize as valid the marriages performed in *any* other state, for instance Massachussetts.
                          What effect would that have on marriages from other countries, do you know?

                          But, to actually define who can and cannot marry in the US, the federal government has no legitimate authority without a constitutional amendment.
                          What about unions other than marriage? Is it just "marriage" that's being defended ? that is, an institution called marriage, rather than the rights that go with marriage that could come under other headings (civil partnerships/unions/legal partnerships).

                          If it is a phrasing issue, I don't have a massive problem with it. So long as the rights involved become equal.

                          There is a generally acknowledged 14th Amendment right to marry (unqualified), under Loving v. Virginia, but states have and do still reserve the right to qualify that in a number of ways, most notably age.
                          So is the question, which criteria should be state-decided?


                          -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Wolfie Gilmore View Post
                            What effect would that have on marriages from other countries, do you know?
                            I don't believe the act has any effect on public acts in other countries -- the underlying section of the Constitution doesn't require full faith and credit be given to marriages (straight or gay) in the UK, for instance, although there may be a treaty that does.

                            What about unions other than marriage? Is it just "marriage" that's being defended ? that is, an institution called marriage, rather than the rights that go with marriage that could come under other headings (civil partnerships/unions/legal partnerships).
                            Well, it's not the word marriage, unions, or anything else -- the 10th Amendment (theoretically) bars the federal government from doing *anything* that isn't expressly covered in the first three articles of the US Constitution (there's an easy read online copy at www.law.cornell.edu, btw). Everything on the subject falls under the general police power of the states.

                            So is the question, which criteria should be state-decided?
                            The way our positive law works is pretty much that people will do anything that the most recent Supreme Court ruling doesn't prohibit, drawing some distinction and then waiting for someone to sue them. Loving was a case in which the Supreme Court overturned anti-miscegenation laws that prevented interracial marriage. Speaking for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Warren wrote --

                            Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
                            What follows is that the states still had the power to regulate marriage, but no longer on the basis of race. If someone sued that they couldn't prevent 9 year olds from marrying, and the Court agreed, the states wouldn't have that distinction.

                            The 14th Amendment test is based on an analysis of whether there is a "fundamental right" recognized in the history of tradition of the society such that any interference of it should have to satisfy the strictest of scrutiny. This test has yet to be applied to the subject of homosexual marriage in the US.
                            sigpic
                            Banner by LRae12

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I understand that it is a state decision as per the constitution. But I think the history of this subject has shown that this is not a state to state issue anymore. It is a national issue that we are all concerned with in one way or another. To me that says we should take it out of the state courts and start talking about it on a national level.

                              Someone said the most offensive thing ever to me the other day on this subject. They said "every time the gays are given rights, society falls." And then he went on to tell me all about how it had ruined the Roman empire and history tells us that we can't give these people rights.

                              Honestly? What kind of a response am I supposed to make to that kind of statement? I stood there gaping at him like a fish through the whole thing.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Tell them (in Latin, because they're talking about Rome), post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a logical fallacy, premised on the idea "after this, then because of this".

                                I am strongly against the federal courts intervening at all -- it's obviously something that's meant to fall to the political branches. Constitutional amendments ended slavery and gave women the right to vote. If the time come that a national policy *must* be set for who can and cannot marry, that is the way to do it. I've always found it odd that those interested in defining marriage between man and woman always avail themselves of the constitutional process (Prop 8, Amendment 2, the oft-proposed US constitutional amendment) but that it never occurs to anyone to push amendments the other way -- it's always pled to the courts to decide. Nothing lasting has ever happened that way.
                                sigpic
                                Banner by LRae12

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Those deciding to go to court may not have the public support required for a constitutional amendment, or a way to gain such support without going to the courts.

                                  Also, sometimes the courts produce results that last for some time, like the ban on bans on interracial marriage, or abortion rights, or the unconstitutionality of criminalizing same-gender sex (okay, recent but likely to stick), etc.

                                  Side note: another thing the Federal Government could do without a constitutional amendment is to recognize tax benefits for same-gender marriages performed anywhere, or even for some partnerships.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by EvilVampire View Post

                                    Side note: another thing the Federal Government could do without a constitutional amendment is to recognize tax benefits for same-gender marriages performed anywhere, or even for some partnerships.
                                    I think that would be really wise. I don't think anyone particularly wants to argue with the churches on whether or not same sex marriage is okay by them because we all know where that road goes. But the government isn't supposed to adhere to the dicatates of the church (even though it does on so many things it's impossible to think we have actual seperation of church and state). The bottom line for me is that we're all members of this country, and we all deserve the same rights, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. If men and women can get a tax break by getting married, why can't a lesbian couple get the same thing from a civil union?

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      There's another reason not to rely on the courts -- they are trumped by the Constitution. Because constitutions can not be unconstitional. So the things you mention... interracial marriage, abortion... all could be thrown out by constitutional amendment. This is the same thing that's happened with Prop 8; a constitutional amendment is the "I win" button over a court ruling. Now, there's little or nothing that can be done for same sex marriage in California without the Supreme Court intervening on behalf of the practice, or a constitutional amendment to the US constitution.

                                      even though it does on so many things it's impossible to think we have actual seperation of church and state
                                      It's already much more separate than the Constitution textually or originally ever imagined.
                                      sigpic
                                      Banner by LRae12

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                                        It's already much more separate than the Constitution textually or originally ever imagined.
                                        I agree, but much more separate is not completely separate the way it probably should be considering the large number of different religions present in our country as it is.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X