You are at...
Home 
A Proposition
A Proposition
| An Amazing Proposition? |
 |
 |
| Written by Aria |
| Friday, 13 February 2009 05:48 |
|
Is it really a wise move to tamper with the document? Proposition 8 hopes to do so and in so doing, it also optss, quite unfortunately, to exclude groups of citizens from the mix of power and dignity. Here are two celebrities, among many, who have spoken out about Prop 8... 
YOU CAN FORGET MY TAXES - Melissa Etheridge ... "Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen." ... "Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I
can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping
instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure
Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays
in taxes too. Wow, come to..." - Read the full article at Melissa's Blog  And what did Ellen have to say for herself? ... - "There’s a
California Proposition on the ballot that’s a little confusing. It’s
Proposition 8. It’s called, “The California Marriage Protection Act” --
but don’t let the name fool you. It’s not protecting anyone’s marriage.
Not yours. Not mine." - Ellen Degeneres Read Ellen's Blog Four Thought-Provoking Video Commentaries You must have the Adobe Flash Player installed to view this player.
Do you have a hot topic you'd like to discuss? Don't forget to post and tell us about it! 
|
Discuss (19 posts)
 CarlaFreak |
Re:An Amazing Proposition?
Feb 15 2009 22:31:57 I love the gays too!
and prop 8 passing just seems so unreal to me! I think they should do a recount! |
#71 |
|
An Amazing Proposition?
Mar 07 2009 12:38:14 Love sure is love... and I just don't get why love of any form needs to be condemned... just don't get it... Religious songs glorify the need for warring against non-believers and that somehow is sanctioned, but love.. love.. how can love be wrong? Please someone tell me!
Anyhoos.. yep.. deffo love these clips he he he... and yepsis.. ya gotta luv ze gays! Yesterday I believe it was, vinoverde provided a link to a live stream of the Prop 8 hearings in California.. Ok.. t'was confuzing for lil' ol' me and as Vee pointed out.. yep, that's the way these pro Prop 8-ters got the thing passed, by using confusing upside down language.. ooh life! And the game of politics! What to do? |
#117 |
|
Re:An Amazing Proposition?
Jun 04 2009 12:46:24 Written Yahoo! News article written on Wed, Jun 3
New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. Lynch -- who personally opposes gay marriage -- signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon. ... "Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities -- and respect -- under New Hampshre law," Lynch said. Lynch, a Democrate, had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes. Source The other day I saw a part of an episode of "Desperate Housewives" where one of the wives decided to take what would be considered outrageous steps to ensure that her husband would not receive a half of her assets should a divorce take place. It reminded me of the Marvin vs Marvin palimony law suit and about palimony in general. The California Supreme court mandated the following: In summary, we base our opinion on the principle that adults who voluntarily live together and engage in sexual relations are nonetheless as competent as any other persons to contract respecting their earnings and property rights . . . . So long as the agreement does not rest upon illicit meretricious consideration, the parties may order their economic affairs as they choose, and no policy precludes the courts from enforcing such contracts. Id. at 674. Six out of 50 states now approve marriage for all their citizens... 44 still deny all citizens equal rights. So I wonder why it couldn't be an automatic that as long as each partner of a couple authorises their partner (even by the verbal contract) to be the 'next of kin' so to speak in matters concerning health and finance, that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to be treated as the primary contact and care-giver for their partner even without benefit of marriage. Hmm.. don't know if I stated my thought clearly, but there you have it... something that the 1950's part of ''If These Walls Could Talk II" gets me thinking about all the time. Who would have thought that the capacity to love would be reason enough, in some law makers mind, to blatantly take away the rights of citizens.  |
#734 |
|
Re:An Amazing Proposition?
Jun 11 2009 22:57:39 Aria
Six out of 50 states now approve marriage for all their citizens... 44 still deny all citizens equal rights. So I wonder why it couldn't be an automatic that as long as each partner of a couple authorises their partner (even by the verbal contract) to be the 'next of kin' so to speak in matters concerning health and finance, that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to be treated as the primary contact and care-giver for their partner even without benefit of marriage. I am surprised that people or better societies are not able to learn from the history. They prefer to repeat mistakes, which were done long ago. The area of human rights is good example of not learning from the history. Is not this gay marriage case just an interesting dejavu? Why some people feel a need to discriminate other people if they behave or look a bit different? Are they are not able to recognize that something evil is in their own actions? Of course in 20 or 30 years they will change their mind, they will even forget that once upon a time they were against the gay marriage for example. However, the history won't forget on that old stain of theirs. That is good. |
#767 |
|
Re: An Amazing Proposition?
Jun 16 2009 18:09:57 Jera wrote:
Of course in 20 or 30 years they will change their mind, they will even forget that once upon a time they were against the gay marriage for example. However, the history won't forget on that old stain of theirs. That is good. Hey Jera, Tammy Etheridge said just about the same in a television interview, that she is sure that in her children's lifetimes there will be no hooplah about gay marriages, and I, for one, am crossing my fingers that this will be true. And it is a shame that we tend to conveniently forget history lessons, but I am grateful that we, at least some of us, live in a time and a place where people can have a choice about how and whom they love and still feel safe enough to contemplate marriage. I came across a video the other day with a Jamaican fellow who offered advice to a friend on gay marriage. I thought he brought up some very interesting points. ** Warning: Strong Language ** |
#780 |
|
Re: An Amazing Proposition?
Jun 17 2009 20:35:49 Thank you for interesting video. I agree with Lowhood that this guy is amazing. Moreover, smart and cute BTW.
I have no doubts that quite soon gay marriage will become legal at least in the west side of the World. However, I do not think that marriage is something what people needs the most no matter if they are straight or gay. Ok if they want a marriage, they should have a right for that. Nevertheless, I can see also certain damage, which will be caused to the gay people with marriage which will consequently make their relations as common as straight relations already are. I think that prohibition always makes things sweeter as they would be if they would not be forbidden. Just MHO.  |
#787 |
|
Re: An Amazing Proposition?
Jun 18 2009 13:08:21 Jera wrote:
Nevertheless, I can see also certain damage, which will be caused to the gay people with marriage which will consequently make their relations as common as straight relations already are. I think that prohibition always makes things sweeter as they would be if they would not be forbidden. Just MHO. Oh dear lol... very interesting point of view and yes, yes... alcohol certainly did seem to be more appealing when it was outlawed in the U.S. of A. during Prohibition. I get the idea that you think that the union of two people who love each other is so much more special than the validation that may be received from 'marriage'. I look at the divorce rate and then yesterday I was looking at list of famous gay and lesbian couples who have been together for 10-30 years (without being able to marry) and I think the same thing too in many ways. So many couples with such long-term relationships who still aren't given the right to marry if they wish. I think it's the fact that citizens don't have the option to marry if they wish that is really disturbing to me. If you feel the bonds of love and want to commit, I feel it is so important that all citizens get that right and should receive all the benefits they can receive from it. Seems that President Obama has taken some steps to try to give gay and lesbian federal employees rights that they didn't have before such as rights to visitation and 'depend care', but many gay rights activists say this is not enough...' - Obama Gives Gay Partners Some Benefits - I think, yes, this may be a baby step, but it feels like it's a step in the right direction and at least it isn't as some leaders in the past have done, it's not a step backward (or rather .. it doesn't seem to condone taking rights away from citizens). |
#789 |
|
Re: An Amazing Proposition?
Jun 18 2009 19:11:47 He certainly have some valid points about marriage, but I would say that they apply to anyone getting married straight or gay. If you make any sort of committment you should make sure that you do so for the right reasons.
About marriage though, in many places it is a way not just to make a commitment to your spouse but also has a legal aspect. For example here in Sweden, people living together in a relationship are in many ways treated the same by the law as a married couple, and even more so if they have children. But you need to make more provisions in case something happens. For example in regards to house/apartment etc. If a couple is married then the surviving party always have the right to keep living in the house until they decide to move or otherwise, and any part of it that has been left to children etc. will be divided up after noone is living in it. If you are not married and especially if you have not made out a will, that is not the fact. In that case the surviving person might have to sell their home becuase they cannot afford to buy out any children that has inherited a part of the house. Just to point to another side of the coin... |
#793 |
|
An Amazing Proposition?
Dec 08 2009 14:00:05 Diane Savino speaking logically and passionately about passing the gay marriage bill in the New York Senate and why she is voting yes to pass the bill
|
#1690 |
|
Re:An Amazing Proposition?
Dec 09 2009 07:23:00 I understand about the preservation of institutions (such as marriage) and how important it is to maintain a status quo. I also understand about rights of citizenship and as far as I know a birthright in a country or naturalisation is all that is required for citizenship. I don't think the term implies exclusion based on whom people love and citizenship rights (such as marriage) should be for all citizens, no?
Diane Savino highlights a comment she made to a man who stuck his head in her car window at a stop light that interestingly enough although she doesn't know this man at all, they have the right to go down to City Hall and get a marriage license without anyone questioning the sanctity of their potential marriage... Very interesting point, me think. Diane Savino concluded her speech by saying: So, if there is anything wrong or any threat to the sanctity of marriage in America, it comes from those of us who have the privilege and the right and we have abused it for decades. We have nothing to fear from Tom Duane and Louis. We have nothing to fear from Danny O’Donnell and his partner. We have nothing to fear from people who are committed to each other, who want to share their lives and protect one another in the event of sickness, illness, or death. We have nothing to fear from love and commitment. Amazing speech! IMHO... Makes me wonder why there is a debate at all. What is to be feared from people wanting to commit to love and protect each other under the law? |
#1693 |
|
Re:An Amazing Proposition?
Dec 09 2009 12:19:16 Very good speach, really toned down but hitting point after point. I agree, listening to that speach how could anyone come up with any reason for opposing?
In our case the fear or narrowmindendess resulted in us having two separate laws governing "marriage" for a while depending on whether the two people involved where of opposite sex or the same. The legal rights where about the same (a few differences that where amended over time) but different definitions and two separate laws for the same thing is of course not ideal. Since May this year they changed our "Marriage act" (Äktenskapsbalken) to no longer be defined as being between a man and a woman. I can't really remember how the debate went when "registrerat partnerskap" was introduced (it was introduced in 1995, so not that long ago). But the main debate this time around was again the different religious groups that had opinions about a lot of things. Since religious institutions can perform the actual ceremony legally here, there was a discussion about whether they should have the right to actually deny certain couples or not. I would have preferred the solution where the actual legal part is performed in a civil ceremony and for thoose who wish, they could have an additional "blessing" ceremony or something like that in the church of their choice. End result I believe was that individual clergy has the right to discriminate and choose to not wed a couple of the same sex, but still be allowed to marry other couples. Certainly far from ideal but at least there is now one single law that governs this sort of legal agreement (marriage) in Sweden. |
#1696 |
|
Re:An Amazing Proposition?
Dec 14 2009 14:21:30 OMG. She is truly awesome. I could listen to her all day.
|
#1717 |
quietstorm |
Re:An Amazing Proposition?
Dec 14 2009 20:59:45 Eloquently spoken. I love it when a person speaks passionately about his/her convictions. Marriage in the US is a joke at times.... the senator makes some excellent points. I am going to show this to all my family and friends to see if it helps broaden their horizons a bit. I would like to help people see outside of their narrow little box of a world to see that there are people being oppressed and denied rights and why???? because they love someone who looks like them. My sister has been married four times.... where is the sanctity in that? Noone has ever questioned the validity or commitment in either of her four marriages, why is that? But, there are lesbian and gay couples who have been together for many years and their commitment is brought into question almost daily.... ok so I am rambling, but this topic always gets me a little worked up. I welcome any comments or opposing views because I agree 100% with the senator and commend her for voicing herself so eloquently and passionately speaking for those of us in this world who believe that we should be allowed to share our life with whom we please.
|
#1721 |
|
Re:An Amazing Proposition?
Dec 16 2009 09:15:06 DC Legalizes Gay Marriage
15 December 2009 [img]http://img2.newser.com/image/316065-6-20091215141047.image[/img][img]http://img1.newser.com/image/316064-6-20091215141028.image[/img] (Oct. 6, 2009, file photo, Ed Grandis, left, and Juan D. Rondon, hold hands after a bill allowing same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia was introduced at a city council meeting. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File) WASHINGTON (Dec. 15) -- In a vote that sets up the first test of gay marriage in the U.S. Congress, the District of Columbia City Council on Tuesday voted to make same-sex marriage legal in the nation's capital. The 11-2 decision, the second of two decisions by the council, clears the way for Mayor Adrian Fenty to sign the bill into law. That starts a 30-day review period in Congress, but advocates expect the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill to allow the measure to become law in March. "We are on the verge of history," Councilman David Catania told a pre-vote rally Monday night. "Today's victory means a great deal, coming after marriage equality losses in New York and Maine," Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign said in an e-mail to supporters. The vote was a bright spot for gay-rights activists who have suffered a string of recent setbacks in Maine, New York and New Jersey. If Congress sits on its hands as expected, the district will become the fourth jurisdiction, along with Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa, where gays can marry. Next month, same-sex couples in New Hampshire will be able to wed. The vote came after negotiations between the City Council and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington failed to reach agreement. Local Catholic leaders had worried that the bill, which exempts priests from being forced to perform same-sex ceremonies, would force Catholic Charities to extend benefits and adoption services to same-sex couples. The archdiocese had threatened to withhold social services over the gay marriage bill but appeared to soften its position on its Web site after the vote. "The archdiocese advocated for a bill that would balance the council's interest in redefining marriage with the need to protect religious freedom. Regrettably, the bill did not strike that balance," the statement said, adding however, that, "the Archdiocese of Washington and Catholic Charities are deeply committed to serving those in need, regardless of race, creed, gender, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. This commitment is integral to our Catholic faith and will remain unchanged into the future." Former Mayor Marion Barry and another African-American council member voted against the bill, echoing opposition from some black ministers who reject the argument of gay activists that the fight for same-sex marriage is a matter of civil rights. The gay marriage vote was just the latest hot-button issue that will tell whether district residents are gaining more say in their local governance. Last week, Congress passed a spending bill that stripped away a ban on the use of medicinal marijuana in the capital and also gave residents more say on issues such as abortion funding and school vouchers. - Source - A landmark I think and a statement about giving ALL citizens the rights that citizenship offers in a country. I absolutely agree with everyone who has commented and will add this: While there is debate about what religious books and morality say about who has the right to 'wed', I ask as a man takes the hand of a male friend to comfort him in times of crisis or in the time of war or as a mother looks tenderly at her daughter on her wedding day or when she is cleaning up a scraped knee, why is gender considered a bad thing when it comes to allowing people to simply love and be loved? Isn't it in our very nature as human beings to love and want to be loved by others? |
#1728 |
Discuss this item on the forums. (19 posts)
Copyright © 2012 Its Only Love.net. All Rights Reserved.
http://itsonlylove.net
"Cause Visibility Counts!"
http://itsonlylove.net
"Cause Visibility Counts!"