SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

I couldn't find a topic for this, and don't remember if it was ever discussed, but I wanted to share some info from what I hear from people.

Before I begin, let me just say I have absolutely no problem with same sex marriage personally. This is in regards to what is going on in California. Basically, California voters voted "no" on same sex marriage, which if you do or don't agree with it, it's a matter of the voters and it did not pass. That doesn't mean it's going to stick anyways. However, apparently 10 groups in favor of same sex marriage basically asked the courts to reveal who voted for Proposition 8 and for reasons I cannot even fathom, the courts released the names because they didn't expect backlash.

I work at a call center for conservative voters. For the most part I enjoy my job and the good definately outweighs the bad, I get to talk to some interesting people but I have the unfortunate task of asking people to pledge money to campaigns, sometimes to those of which I do not personally agree with, but choose to work on them because the times around here are tough, it's a personal and difficult choice for me and honestly I do not like Proposition 8.

However, I'm increasingly getting annoyed with the opposition since they apparently took the names (I don't know how many or to how they got the exact records) and put them on the Internet and some of these people have been targeted. From what I've heard, a lot of people have been getting vandalized in various ways as well as death threats and such. I'm sure this goes both ways, but the courts should never have released that information to begin with. I don't know if it's illegal or not, or what loopholes were used since I don't live in California, but this whole thing is ridiculous and if I was those voters who had my information leaked, I would file a lawsuit against the state.

Anyways, I just thought I would vent a little. When I spend 10 hours a day talking to these people and especially when a lot of them are elderly and have been ingrained with a certain belief their entire life about marriage, I don't consider them terrible people and it upsets me that others have to be so fucking low as to resort to fear tactics.

Posted: Jun 19 2010 12:38 am

Why in the hell would the courts release that? Are they fucking moronic? I mean, come on. They had to know they only reason that anyone would want that list of names would be to harass, intimidate, vandalize, or otherwise annoy those people.

I bet they'd never release a list of the people who voted FOR same sex marriage. And nor should they. There are hateful idiots on the anti-marriage side as well, and we'd probably get Matthew Shepard times 1000 if they released that list. But guess what? If it's a bad idea to release one list, then IT'S A BAD FUCKING IDEA TO RELEASE THE OTHER LIST TOO.

I hate to speak in Fox News platitudes, but I can tell you why they did this. It's because the California courts are filled with ideology-driven liberal judges who have no respect or understanding of the Constitution or the American legal system in general and abuse their positions to help further their own bleeding heart causes.

Joined: Oct 12 2007 Posts: 821

Syd Lexia wrote:

I hate to speak in Fox News platitudes, but I can tell you why they did this. It's because the California courts are filled with ideology-driven liberal judges who have no respect or understanding of the Constitution or the American legal system in general and abuse their positions to help further their own bleeding heart causes.

I will talk more in depth on my views and such, but I just want to point out this wouldn't be true. In order for Prop 8 to pass, it needed 67% of the judges to vote on its approval, since it was constitutional amendment. If CA had only liberal bleeding heart judges, it would have never passed. Thus, it is reasonable to assume the judges just aren't very bright, rather than of any political domination.

However, this was a poor choice by the judges.

Posted: Jun 19 2010 12:53 am

Specifically, there is a definite problem is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There is not necessarily a problem with the state's judges as a whole.

Posted: Jun 19 2010 06:07 am

Before the resident paranoid conservatives on this board blow a gasket (too late), can we see some sources on what you're purporting Dodds? Is there any evidence or reports of people actually being vandalized? Do you even have a source that says this information was indeed released to the public, or are you just hearing this information second hand from conservatives on your call list?

Posted: Jun 19 2010 06:43 am

Found some links:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/a-triumph-for-political-speech-15427?page=2
http://sfist.com/2009/02/02/new_prop_8_donor_names_released.php

Apparently it is a donor list and not a voter list, which is slightly less shady.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 19 2010 08:00 am

I was going to say,the courts would never reveal who voted for anything, voting is always confidential. Donors are fair game, though...stand behind your money.

Quote:

Basically, California voters voted "no" on same sex marriage, which if you do or don't agree with it, it's a matter of the voters and it did not pass.

Staying away from the issue itself, this is not necessarily true. "Majority rules" is not the only facet of our government, a democratic republic also needs to protect the rights of the minority. If the judges feel the will of the people doesn't do this, it's their duty to overturn it. We saw a lot of this during Reconstruction.

And for the record, Syd is right. The Ninth Circuit is fucking nuts. And that's coming from me, so that means something. They get overturned all the time.

Posted: Jun 19 2010 08:05 am

UsaSatsui wrote:

Staying away from the issue itself, this is not necessarily true. "Majority rules" is not the only facet of our government, a democratic republic also needs to protect the rights of the minority. If the judges feel the will of the people doesn't do this, it's their duty to overturn it. We saw a lot of this during Reconstruction.

You are incorrect. Majority rule is completely fair and awesome. Black Sabbath, with Dio, wrote a fantastic song about it.

Posted: Jun 19 2010 12:57 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Staying away from the issue itself, this is not necessarily true. "Majority rules" is not the only facet of our government, a democratic republic also needs to protect the rights of the minority. If the judges feel the will of the people doesn't do this, it's their duty to overturn it. We saw a lot of this during Reconstruction.

You are incorrect. Majority rule is completely fair and awesome. Black Sabbath, with Dio, wrote a fantastic song about it.

Goddammit, I try to stay out of political debates here on the SydLexia forums, but Syd is 100% correct. That Black Sabbath song is fucking awesome!

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

It's funny in a morbid way, really. Even not so long ago, gays were being vandalized threatened, abused, or worse for their choices, now we live in a world that does it to the bigots.

Posted: Jun 20 2010 07:43 am

UsaSatsui wrote:

Donors are fair game, though...stand behind your money.

This is actually a difficult issue. And there's no right answer. Either way, society loses. On the one hand, the right to privacy should include, at least to some extent, financial privacy. Obviously, due to the government's right to tax, your earnings are a matter of federal record. But your spending, aside from property purchases, should be private. If your mom wants to buy all the dildoes in Dildo Town, shouldn't she be free to do so without fear of harassment? We have laws that guarantee your right to privacy in regards to video rentals. For reasons that I'll never understand, this right does not extend to most other spending.

Then we come to political donations. On the one hand, no one wants their political donations made public. On the other hand, if detailed records are not kept, then corporations and ultra-wealthy people could easily donate millions of dollars to the campaigns of their choice despite laws and donation caps that are in place to prevent such things from happening. So like I said, it's lose-lose. Either you surrender your personal freedom, or you surrender democracy.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 23 2010 09:26 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Donors are fair game, though...stand behind your money.

This is actually a difficult issue. And there's no right answer. Either way, society loses. On the one hand, the right to privacy should include, at least to some extent, financial privacy. Obviously, due to the government's right to tax, your earnings are a matter of federal record. But your spending, aside from property purchases, should be private. If your mom wants to buy all the dildoes in Dildo Town, shouldn't she be free to do so without fear of harassment? We have laws that guarantee your right to privacy in regards to video rentals. For reasons that I'll never understand, this right does not extend to most other spending.

Then we come to political donations. On the one hand, no one wants their political donations made public. On the other hand, if detailed records are not kept, then corporations and ultra-wealthy people could easily donate millions of dollars to the campaigns of their choice despite laws and donation caps that are in place to prevent such things from happening. So like I said, it's lose-lose. Either you surrender your personal freedom, or you surrender democracy.

I disagree. You have the right to "free speech", which is what private donations to political causes are considered. (I really fucking wish they weren't, but that's another topic). You do not have the right to anonymous speech. If you're going to go out and speak in favor of any cause (either with your mouth or your money), you better be willing to face the possible consequences, just like anyone else who goes out and uses their free speech right.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 10:47 am

I disagree on a ideological level. Personal spending should fall under "right to privacy" not "free speech".

Also, consider that you do have a right to privacy in regards to charitable donations. You can donate anonymously to community theater, the Church, the Salvation army, or hundreds of other causes. The only reason political donations are any different is because of campaign finance reform.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

I don't know much about this apart from what i have read.

However the idea of a vote is fucking stupid and this is what pisses me off about humanity.

The people who voted no - it is none of their fucking business what other people do with their lives. NONE.

So it should just be legalised and those people to live their lives happily and the other people should just have nothing to do with it.

How fucking pathetic are people that get annoyed because SOMEONE ELSE wants to get married to another member of the same sex. It's just fucking ludacris. Especially in this day and age.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 01:06 pm

Alowishus wrote:

How fucking pathetic are people that get annoyed because SOMEONE ELSE wants to get married to another member of the same sex. It's just fucking ludacris. Especially in this day and age.

Well said.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 01:34 pm

Should gay couples be afforded the opportunity to commit to each other in an ultra fabulous ceremony and subsequently afforded the same tax breaks and legal benefits that married couples have? Absolutely.

Should it necessarily be called marriage? I don't know. I'm not the boss of marriage.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 02:08 pm

Alowishus wrote:

How fucking pathetic are people that get annoyed because SOMEONE ELSE wants to get married to another member of the same sex. It's just fucking ludacris. Especially in this day and age.

Well, I think their arguement is that if two men can get married, then it somehow cheapens or invalidates their own gender specific tradition of marriage. Essentially, the institution of "marriage" loses its meaning, particularly in a religious context.

Personally, I don't really care either way. If two dudes want to get married, then fine, it doesn't threaten my own marriage. But then again, if people want to bitch and moan about it and make laws to forbid gay marriage, then fine, it doesn't effect my own marriage. The whole thing is a non-issue to me either way.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 03:59 pm

I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of referring to you as "married," you can be “butt buddies”. Instead of being "man and wife," you'll be “butt buddies”. You won't be "betrothed," you'll be “butt buddies”. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom," you'd be “butt buddies”.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 04:16 pm

/south park

I really don't care. I don't think of marriage as a religious obligation. Rather, it was more a pledge to my wife that I want to be with her and only her for the rest of my life. Sacrificing the religious aspect of it, there's no harm at all. If you're gay, straight, bisexual, or you love to stick your dick in trees, who cares? As long as both parties are consenting, and both have the intention of making that commitment, then why not? I'm actually far more offended by the divorce rate than same sex marriage, and pretty much for the same reason fundamentalists are for the same sex issue: I feel divorcees are defiling the meaning of getting married, which is a lifelong pledge to that person. Being gay doesn't defile it. Being insincere, noncommital or downright fradulent does.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 04:26 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Should gay couples be afforded the opportunity to commit to each other in an ultra fabulous ceremony and subsequently afforded the same tax breaks and legal benefits that married couples have? Absolutely.

Should it necessarily be called marriage? I don't know. I'm not the boss of marriage.

Yeah. On the one hand, I can see that the technical nomenclature shouldn't matter. But on the other hand, I can see why it would piss gay people off to essentially allow them to marry, but not call it what it is just because its two people of the same gender.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 04:47 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Should gay couples be afforded the opportunity to commit to each other in an ultra fabulous ceremony and subsequently afforded the same tax breaks and legal benefits that married couples have? Absolutely.

Should it necessarily be called marriage? I don't know. I'm not the boss of marriage.

Yeah, I always found it annoying that when black and whites finally were allowed to get married (in some states, not until the 1970s) that they were allowed to call it 'marriage'. They want to get married? Fine. But I don't know if it should be called the same thing as when an all-white couple gets married. I don't know what an interracial marriage should be called, but since the Church didn't want interracial marriages to occur we should respect that and not let them denegrate the term 'marriage'. Maybe call them 'Grey Unions' or something.

Pandajuice wrote:

Personally, I don't really care either way. If two dudes want to get married, then fine, it doesn't threaten my own marriage. But then again, if people want to bitch and moan about it and make laws to forbid gay marriage, then fine, it doesn't effect my own marriage. The whole thing is a non-issue to me either way.

Exactly. Leave me alone. If there are injustices in the world then only those who are directly affected by it should give a shit. I'm too busy to care if other humans are afforded the same rights as me. I'm sure the Civil Rights Movement would have occurred anyway, even without whites jumping in and helping out with that fight. I have stuff to do. Also, when things are non-issues to me, I still feel it is necessary to comment on them. I may not care about the issues that don't affect me directly, but god damn it, I care enough to make sure everyone KNOWS that I don't care and am not affected by it.

All sarcasm and douchebaggery aside, it's disgusting that there are people in the United States that do not have the same rights as others. Based on our current laws, homosexuals are not considered on the same level as heterosexuals. It's embarrassing, and the same way we look at our parents and grandparents with amazement that they lived in a time where people from different races couldn't get married, our kids will look at us and think we were ridiculous for not allowing two people, no matter their gender, to get married. It's a shame.

Do I think churches should be forced to marry gays or lesbians? Definitely not. They have their beliefs and no government should force them to change that. However, from a legal point of view, there's no reason that marriages shouldn't be allowed between people of the same sex.

Also, if people are so hell-bent on preserving the sanctity of marriage, then outlaw divorce and affairs. We need to protect marriage, after all.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 05:18 pm

maybe call it mawwiage

Posted: Jun 23 2010 07:27 pm

Klimbatize, Your my new hero. Your sarcasm has brought a smile to my face.

I don't care if your black, white, gay, straight, or a space alien. If you and another person love each other, you deserve the same rights, and protections as any other couple.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 07:29 pm

Klimbatize wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

Should gay couples be afforded the opportunity to commit to each other in an ultra fabulous ceremony and subsequently afforded the same tax breaks and legal benefits that married couples have? Absolutely.

Should it necessarily be called marriage? I don't know. I'm not the boss of marriage.

Yeah, I always found it annoying that when black and whites finally were allowed to get married (in some states, not until the 1970s) that they were allowed to call it 'marriage'. They want to get married? Fine. But I don't know if it should be called the same thing as when an all-white couple gets married. I don't know what an interracial marriage should be called, but since the Church didn't want interracial marriages to occur we should respect that and not let them denegrate the term 'marriage'. Maybe call them 'Grey Unions' or something.

It's a little different than that. Let's pretend there are two different elongated metal pieces that are used in construction. Piece A has a hole on either side, so that it can be connected to other things on either side. Piece B only has a hole on one side. On the other side, it has a piece which can interlock the holes found on Piece A and Piece B.

For centuries, Piece A and B are packaged together in an AB set. One day, someone realizes that they don't need Piece A for some purposes, so they start selling Double B sets. Only, they decide to call it an AB set for some reason. Well, it's not an AB set.

So from a purely semantical standpoint, it makes no sense to refer to gay marriage as marriage. From a human standpoint, it makes a lot more sense.

Posted: Jun 23 2010 07:37 pm

If two attractive dudes get married, that's good for me, it narrows down the playing field.