Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 177 Posts

·
Second Place winner, October 2012 XT Photo Contest
Joined
·
3,938 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Yesterday, February 12, my town, San Francisco, caused a bit of a ruckus. As per a request from the newly-elected mayor, Gavin "gee your hair looks great" Newsom, the city clerk gave over 100 gay and lesbian couples legal City marriage licences. According to Newsom (and to be honest, not just Pretty Boy thinks this), the California law passed in 2000 via voter referendum that defines marriage as being that between a man and a woman (Prop. 22) amounts to unconstitutional discrimination (as per California's Civil Rights Anti-Discrimination statute, I suppose).
The conservative Liberty Council and Campaign for California Families, is planning to file suit in the State Superior Court in order to force San Francisco to void the licences and forbid any further issuings. Constitutional law scholars are in agreeance that the action taken by San Francisco is most likely symbolic since marriages are governed by state and not local governments. But at the same time, any marriage certificate has little if any legal standing anyway. It is just a piece of paper, until the possesors try to assert their rights as a couple by applying for custody of property, children or their Social Security or in probate cases for example. In which case the Constitutional issues would then be joined in full.
According to Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council in Washington DC, "The state of California must rebuff the efforts of this rogue mayor. His actions...show that homosexual activists are ready and willing to ignore the people and to ignore the law to further their agenda of normalizing homosexuality."
According to Newsom, the fight was no different from the battle to eradicate laws against marriages between people of different races or religions (both of which flourished in an earlier time, as per the will of the voting public at that period). "America has struggled in since its inception to eradicate discrimination in all forms. California's constitution leaves no doubts. It leaves no room for any form of discrimination."
Expect a court case to result, maybe one that goes all the way to the Supreme Court eventually.
Among the couples married, were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons, who have been together since 1953 and are pretty familiar to anyone who had to take SF History in college. Other couples were together for 22, 25, 17, 10, 8, 7, and 5 years, but surely they had these long-term relationships in order to foist their agenda on the po' unsuspecting country (its all part of their evil master plan! ;)). Since this issue is so contentious to many conservatives, I would expect many of their marriages to now tragically end in divorce or worse, since you know this sort of thing is a huge threat to all the happily married straight people in America, whose unions are so tenuously held together that the sight of some 85 year old lesbians getting married can send them around the bend! And what about the children? And the farm animals, I am sure are looking around uneasily now. They could be next! ;)
My city's politics is frequently a cesspool of corruption and nimbyism, and I sure didn't vote for pretty boy Newsom, but in this I think he did OK. It is nothing more than a symbolic gesture but one which should lead to the final recconing of this issue (or non-issue, depending on how secure you are in your own sexuality) in the form of a Supreme Court case revolving around the 14th ammendment.
And since conservatives (whom I thought were supposed to be AGAINST government putting its nose into people's business, hence the moniker Conservative), seem hellbent on pushing an amemdment to the Constitution that protects us innocents from this horror against god, nature and the children (you must always think of the children!), it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. From little events do great events sometimes grow.

RIO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
Canada, Massachusetts, and now San Francisco. All that's left is to mop up the bible belt.

Kudos to you for re-introducing the topic Rio, what kind of odds would you give on Bush introducing an amendment to make civilization safe from same sex marriages?
 

·
Second Place winner, October 2012 XT Photo Contest
Joined
·
3,938 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Dude the odds are at 100%, since he is aready behind the Defense of Marriage Ammendament propsal currently being bandied about amongst the Pat Robertson/Gary Bauer/Lou Sheldon/Phyllis Schafly/AnnCoulter/Rush crowd. Hmm, these people may not realize how difficult it is to get an Ammendment passed--which is why we have less than 30 of them.
Anyway, I'm just glad SF is in the national news (although I'm sure most people's reaction was as was mine, "uh there haven't already been doing this?") for something other than ballot boxes floating on the Bay, transvestite nuns running for office and people being mauled to death by large angry dogs. :D

RIO
 

·
Nasty Woman
Joined
·
22,583 Posts
BWAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHA I LOVE that "Defense of Marriage" line.

As if us heterosexuals with our 50% divorce rate haven't already made a mockery of marriage!

Sheesh!

Let the gay people get married. They can't possibly do worse at it than we do.

Double Sheesh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,807 Posts
I have heard all the warnings:

This will destabilize Society
This will threaten Family
This will threaten Marriage

Yet not of these warnings have been adequately explained. Instead, the focus is often shifted on "radical activist judges overruling the will of the people" and on "homosexuals demanding too many rights."

Perhaps all of these apocalyptic messages are a case of cause and effect. For example, this will threaten Marriage, which will threaten Family, which will destabilize Society.

Nevertheless, there is still no explanation as to how gay marriages will threaten the concept of Marriage itself. It is not as if though Marriage is an exclusive club which only a select few are able to join, and which would be tainted by the admission of homosexual couples. In fact, gay marriages would have no efect on heterosexual marriages at all.

Perhaps there are currently more people that oppose the legalization of gay marraige than there are that support it. In time, though, just like denying blacks their freedom, denying blacks the right to vote, denying women the right to vote, and so forth, another form of descrimination will eventually fall.
 

·
Nasty Woman
Joined
·
22,583 Posts
Tim said:
I have heard all the warnings:

This will destabilize Society
This will threaten Family
This will threaten Marriage
Do gay people really have the time and energy to destabilize society, threaten the American Family, destroy our way of life, take over the world and still look fabulous doing it? I think not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,477 Posts
Humbird said:
Do gay people really have the time and energy to destabilize society, threaten the American Family, destroy our way of life, take over the world and still look fabulous doing it? I think not.
I think they have some "not so fabulous looking" operatives to take care of that.

Like Freddy Mercury.
 

·
Second Place winner, October 2012 XT Photo Contest
Joined
·
3,938 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Apparently the institution of marriage is sooo fragile that it can be detroyed by the simplest little things. Gee, how did my parents manage to stay married for 33 years and counting, living a mere half mile from the epicenter of the Gay Agenda ( I think there might even be a dance club by this name! That's the wellspring of all this immorality! ;)?

Gay Agenda:

7:00 am: Wake up. Do 500 sit ups to ensure that rock hard six pack. Wax body hair.

7:30 am: Light breakfast. Plan the destruction of the holy sacrament of marriage.

9:00 am: Hairdresser appointment.

10:30 am: Get together with other members of the cabal and work on plans for world domination.

1:00 pm: Light lunch at Mecca. Fresh snapper almondine with a delightful mango salsa. Two glasses of '85 Clos du Bois chardonnay. Look fabulous.

2:30 pm: Work on plan to infiltrate the schools with the Agenda, whilst working out at the gym. Hope to get a window machine, cos you never know who'll be outside looking in! Work on wrist snaps.

4:00 pm: Beauty nap

4:30 pm: City Beautification Committee meeting. Make a motion for gayer looking trees in the Park. Pine trees are sooo butch! Agitate for more cherry trees.

6:00 pm: Dinner at home with friends. Chicken Diavolo with a lovely mesclun mix salald of spring greens. Discuss interior decorating and how we can use our color matching skills to take over highschool art departments nation-wide.

8:00 pm: Good Judy Garland documentary on PBS. Work on super drag version of "Get Happy" for the annual Gay Agenda Jamboree to be held in the Village in May. Lypsinka will be judging!

10:00 pm: Disco dancing!

12:00 am: Nightcap at The Bar. Engage in the aggressive cruising of unsuspecting straight tourists from Idaho, thus bringing some over to our side!

1:00 am: To bed!

RIO
 

·
Nasty Woman
Joined
·
22,583 Posts
JKris said:
I think they have some "not so fabulous looking" operatives to take care of that.

Like Freddy Mercury.
Freddy Mercury wasn't so bad! :cool:
 

·
Nasty Woman
Joined
·
22,583 Posts
What Rom? Explain?:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,157 Posts
This being San Francisco, I don't think it actually counts :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,477 Posts
I think Rom like his brother, but that is another more serious taboo broken.

Freddy Mercury wasn't so bad!
So did I think, but he did sing "I don't like Star Wars". Anyone can see the evil in that. And well his fashionsense... :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
This op ed from The Globe and Mail sums up the situation quite well,

"In all the oceans of ink that have been spilled over whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, one simple query remains unanswered. How does the marriage of two people of the same sex harm traditional heterosexual couples? How does it infringe on their lives, freedoms or choices?

The answer, discomfiting though it may be for social conservatives, is not at all. A loving marriage is an expression of commitment, stability, mutual economic dependence and enduring loyalty, among other things. That makes it an instrument of social cohesion. And that makes it a contributor to the public good. Sexual orientation is incidental.

On Thursday in San Francisco, shortly before noon, Phyllis Lyon, 80, married Dorothy Martin, 83. The two women have been together for 51 years. Their marriage, the first of 87 same-sex weddings performed in the city that day in protest of California's 2002 law against gay marriage, should threaten no one. If anything, it should be cause for congratulation.

But prejudice -- for that is what is at issue here -- dies hard. Even as hundreds of gay and lesbian couples lined up at San Francisco City Hall yesterday morning to make their own vows, the lobby group Campaign for California Families went to court for a restraining order barring the city from issuing more same-sex wedding licences. Because of Monday's President's Day holiday, the court's verdict won't be known until Tuesday.

The irony is that California is one of two U.S. states (Vermont is the other) that already allow gay and lesbian civil unions. So even as liberal politicians in the Democratic presidential primaries and as far north as Ottawa grapple with the so-called honourable compromise of civil unions, the debate in California has already moved past them. Barely conceived, civil unions are already obsolete.

That's because, though civil unions offer many of the same legal rights as marriage, they are not marriages. Therefore they are not equal to marriages. If they were, there would be no reason to make a distinction. Courts in several North American jurisdictions -- including British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and most recently Massachusetts -- have determined that only full equality will do. The San Francisco weddings make clear that gays and lesbians will not be satisfied with anything less. Good. "

Seems to me that governments should have to prove their reasons for passing discriminatory laws. Mob mentality shouldn't facilitate the passing of bonehead laws, like the ones being considered against same sex marriage, and the head scarf thing in France.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,518 Posts
What i don't understand is why gay people are so hell bent on having same-sex "marriages"? It's the using of the word that i think many people disagree upon.

Why not just call their civil unions something else? Marriage has and should always be a legally-binding union between a man and woman. If homosexuals want something similiar then they should just come up with another word.
 

·
1st Tier Poster
Joined
·
48,648 Posts
RIO said:
Gay Agenda:

7:00 am: Wake up. Do 500 sit ups to ensure that rock hard six pack. Wax body hair.

7:30 am: Light breakfast. Plan the destruction of the holy sacrament of marriage.

9:00 am: Hairdresser appointment.

10:30 am: Get together with other members of the cabal and work on plans for world domination.

1:00 pm: Light lunch at Mecca. Fresh snapper almondine with a delightful mango salsa. Two glasses of '85 Clos du Bois chardonnay. Look fabulous.

2:30 pm: Work on plan to infiltrate the schools with the Agenda, whilst working out at the gym. Hope to get a window machine, cos you never know who'll be outside looking in! Work on wrist snaps.

4:00 pm: Beauty nap

4:30 pm: City Beautification Committee meeting. Make a motion for gayer looking trees in the Park. Pine trees are sooo butch! Agitate for more cherry trees.

6:00 pm: Dinner at home with friends. Chicken Diavolo with a lovely mesclun mix salald of spring greens. Discuss interior decorating and how we can use our color matching skills to take over highschool art departments nation-wide.

8:00 pm: Good Judy Garland documentary on PBS. Work on super drag version of "Get Happy" for the annual Gay Agenda Jamboree to be held in the Village in May. Lypsinka will be judging!

10:00 pm: Disco dancing!

12:00 am: Nightcap at The Bar. Engage in the aggressive cruising of unsuspecting straight tourists from Idaho, thus bringing some over to our side!

1:00 am: To bed!

RIO

Nice one:D These 5000 monkeys are doing a good work.


Nero said:
Why not just call their civil unions something else? Marriage has and should always be a legally-binding union between a man and woman. If homosexuals want something similiar then they should just come up with another word.
They could call it "garriage".There's no laws against garriage between the same sex.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
Luigi Vampa said:
of all the times you should have kept your mouth shut you pick this time? do you smoke with your belly? because its yellow :-|
It's got nothing to with being yellow...it has to do with the realization that secularists such as you of can't possibly be intellectually equipped to discuss marriage as the contractual, juridical foundation of society...

What I've read here is possibly the shallowest pap ever
 
1 - 20 of 177 Posts
Top