George Takei's Marriage Rendered Illegal

No, I get it. You aren't that complicated. You expect the rest of society to give a shit when you percieve a threat to your religious traditions.

Since parents are compelled by law to send their children to public school--unless, of course, they're wealthy enough to opt out of it--public schools MUST be accountable to the people for what they teach.

Requiring attendance and not allowing for opposing moral or social views--particularly those that are widely held--is much more facist in my opinion.

Just as anything can be claimed to be speech.

Since gay marriage is no longer legal in California, the subject DOESN'T exist at all.

Actually, I don't propose that the schools teach "gays are evil and will burn in hell" since I don't believe either of those propositions. I merely want public schools to refrain from trying to impose their moral views on those who may feel differently.

I suppose because I live here in California I see more of the tactics by advocates of the gay agenda to force acceptance. The use of the court to establish gay marriage when it could not be achieved democratically is just one glaring example.

The ram-it-down-your-throat crowd couldn't have been more properly represented than by San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom. Newsom not only ordered the city to issue gay marriage licenses when it was not legal to do so (the courts stopped him), but, when the California Supreme Court established gay marriage, he made this great "It's coming! Whether you like it or not!" speech. Served him right that this kind of stupid triumphalism came back to bite him in the ass: the clip of him saying "Whether you like it or not!" was used in the pro-Prop 8 commercials to great effect.

But the harm isn't direct. No one is free to litter on my property, after all.

Am I harmed when I cannot choose to separate myself from something that offends me?

Am I harmed if a school teaches my children (not that I have any) to believe the opposite of what I teach them?

Am I harmed when discrimination laws force me to accept something I'd rather not?

Am I harmed when I have to pay for a government benefit conferred on another that I haven't chosen to pay for?

"No shortcuts! They should have filed the requests in triplicate 20 years ago if they wanted this!!! I'm not changing my stationary on short notice!!"

What's really hilarious about this conversation is I haven't been to a church in 10 years. Yet, you seem to keep dragging religion into it.

I'm from a religious tradition that recognizes and celebrates the diversity gay marriage represents.

We also recognize that dumbasses like Uncle Albert, Actormike, and others like who brought about the court decision that Prop 8 is a reaction to are doing more to INCREASE rejection of gay rights by society and therefore increasing the time til those rights are ultimately recognized.

I think you know what I would do about public schools.

That it is wrong to deny basic rights to people you don't like is a moral principle that you pretty much have to accept to live in this country.

I'm gonna guess this was a deliberate choice of words.

"Direct" isn't a requirement, of course.

No. That is the price of living in a free society.

If they can't withstand differing points of view, your teaching skills have done them more harm than some public school teacher talking about having two mommies.

Not unless that "acceptance" must be demonstrated in a way that infringes on your rights. Merely living with a thought in your head is not harm.

That door is all the way open, or all the way closed. It is not subject to individual whims.

Do they give out medals for mental gymnastics? Because you just became Michael fucking Phelps.

Yes, those who support gay marriage are the real homophobes, while those who want to restore "traditional marriage" are the ones who love and celebrate same sex relationships.

No, idiots like yourself and UA represent the gay marriage movement, and piss off the straights, setting the movement back years.

I'm curious...how would you have voted on Prop 8?

Exactly. If the majority of people against gay marriage were approaching it from the point of view that the government should only be recognizing civil unions and should be staying out of marriage, they would in fact not get married and go down the civil union path trying to normalise that.

Which of these is more likely to lead to the civil union future they espouse a desire in?

1) Allow gay couples to marry and effectively turn legal marriage into the civil unions they want, meaning the only thing to be done is a name change. As shown in California prior to this vote, this is workable and requires little to no change to the law.

2) Stay supportive of marriage for heterosexual couples while giving lip service to civil unions to homosexual couples (although as has been demonstrated through laws in countries around the world when push comes to shove they will also oppose those civil unions getting the same legal rights as marriage). This requires many changes to laws to recognise civil unions as being legally equal to marriage, requires a decision on what will happen to couples already legally married, will they have to get a new civil union, will the marriage just be turned into a civil union etc?

Then why are you legally married? If you truly think that the government shouldn't be legally recognizing marriages then you should get legally divorced, period. Stay married in the eyes of God but take a stand for your principles in regards to the state.

I asked this a couple of pages ago with no response, and I am genuinely curious. What makes homosexual divorces more complicated than heterosexual ones?

Well for one thing when heterosexual couples get a civil union they don't have federal laws expressly stating that their relationship cannot be treated as a marriage. I'm sure there are many who would call themselves married despite not legally being so, but it does nothing to help them with all the legal restrictions they face.

Prop 8's passage is proof of your dumbassery.

Yes, clearly, because:

1. I didn't live in California when Prop 22 passed.
2. I voted against, and donated against, Prop 8.

So clearly it's my fault.

No, but you're representative of the mentality that resulted in the court action that inspired Prop 8. So yes, you're one of the ones responsible.

Until somebody can incontrovertibly prove to me that allowing gays to marry either devalues or invalidates my marriage, I'll consider any attempt to refuse them the right to be on a par with forcing black people to give up their seat on the bus.
In other words, just plain wrong.

You had me at "hello."

It was only--what?--like three years ago someone decided this was a basic right?

Subtlety is not one of my strong suits.

Agree, but once you allow "indirect," then anything is harmful. An economist would say there's always an opporunity cost, so every decision MUST hurt somebody, even if it only slightly diminishes their possible courses of action.

But in a truly free society, shouldn't one be free to reject what one feels? I'm not talking about a right to NOT be offended; I'm talking about being forced to accept.

It's hard to tell an eight-year-old, whom you've constantly reminding to listen closely to their teachers, to be critical of any social ideas their teacher might have. Better, that the teachers stuck to teaching and kept their social ideas to themselves.

If I refuse to allow members of group X to rent a room in my house or to be a member of my club, should I be prosecuted for it?

Then my two choices are anarchy or totalitarianism. I'd really prefer something more in between...

What mentality? That homosexuals should have exactly the same rights and privledges as heterosexuals? That one?

Again, they do. A homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex just like a heterosexual can.

Yet according to some in this thread, not only is it not wrong, it would be wrong not to force them to give up their seat.

So wait: Are you telling me this Prop 8 banned gay marriage AND requires black people to give up their seat on a bus?

For the people, by the people.

Nice job liberal capital of the USA.

I'd just like to applaud UA, he has wiped the floor with every last one of you who have tried to oppose the basic right of people to marry whomever they want, man or woman. There is no logic behind denying gay people the right to marry. Yes Tamar, it is a right. Just because your small-minded religion doesn't recognize that gay people may want to get married too, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to. What if their religion does?

The fact that it gives you a tax break alone means that anyone should be able to get married to anyone they want.

Good job, UA.

I took a closer look at it and the issues and if I had been in CA I would have voted "No."

An interesting tidbit about CA is that at first their marriage statutes used gender-neutral statutory language...it wasn't until 1977 that a civil code amendment changed that.

Psst. Fucknut.....I'm not against gay marriage.

Oh, please tell me my religion, that should be good for a laugh.

Point of order: The fact that it gets a tax break doesn't mean a damned fucking thing about whether it should be legal.

You get a tax break for owning a home or having a child or any number of other things that don't apply to all people.

I'm not arguing against them getting married, but your point is invalid.

Black Dove, George Takei's marriage is not rendered illegal. You are aware of things like ex post factos?

That is the official sign of the Californian campaign against gay marriage.

I'm just not getting the vibe from it that they think the government should be getting out of marriage.

Seems to me that if I argued that a lot of deception was involved in getting Obama elected you wouldn't buy that claim for half a second.

Either you trust the voters or you don't. If this was actually religious oppression and the voters of CALIFORNIA couldn't figure it out - what does that say about the voters?

This, otoh, is a better argument. Please remember this view when it's used against you in the future.