Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 29, 2014, 01:04:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 23065
  • Latest: MikeDH
Stats
  • Total Posts: 632170
  • Total Topics: 47869
  • Online Today: 222
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Whats the scoop with CA marriage on the ballot?  (Read 1625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline randym431

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,115
Whats the scoop with CA marriage on the ballot?
« on: July 17, 2008, 12:23:10 AM »
I don’t get it. Since when do mis-informed voters get to make constitutional amendments?
Whats next, the KKK putting on the ballot to re enact slavery?

Now that the right wing nutz got their way on this, can you imagine the tv ad's they will start running against gay marriage. The lies, the mis-information, the fear tactics.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,891
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline sharkdiver

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
Re: Whats the scoop with CA marriage on the ballot?
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2008, 01:29:13 AM »
I don’t get it. Since when do mis-informed voters get to make constitutional amendments?
Whats next, the KKK putting on the ballot to re enact slavery?

Now that the right wing nutz got their way on this, can you imagine the tv ad's they will start running against gay marriage. The lies, the mis-information, the fear tactics.


They already did the anti gay marriage adds before with Prop 22.   Don't you worry they will come  ;)

Offline lydgate

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Virgin, can't drive
Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

George Eliot, Middlemarch, final paragraph

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Whats the scoop with CA marriage on the ballot?
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2008, 08:35:03 AM »
From the link posted above:
Quote
Mr. Manchester said Wednesday: “This really is a free-speech, First Amendment issue. While I respect everyone’s choice of partner, my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

What really needs to change in the US is individuals thinking that's what's right for them is the 'true' right.  The individual above, while probably sincere in his Catholic beliefs, needs to realize that they are not my beliefs, as I am not a Catholic.  He has the freedom of speech and to worship as he sees fit, but he does not have the right to force those beliefs on me (or anybody else).  We, as a country, have to realize that we need to lead / teach by example, not by force.  Forcing religious, political, or any other beliefs on people does not work.  We sure can be slow to learn sometimes!

Also the link above states that $2.3 million has been raised to support the CA ban on same-sex marriage.  Just think how many homeless folks could be fed, clothed, and housed; how many people without health care could be helped; and how much good could be done in general with that amount of money.  It's simply disgusting.

edited to add:
I've always thought that we're going about this the wrong way.  We, as a country, need to define what we now consider 'marriage' as a group of civil rights/benefits with a different name.  Then, the word 'marriage' can belong to whatever group or religion wants it.  After all, strip away the rights/benefits and it's just another word.

David
« Last Edit: July 17, 2008, 08:39:32 AM by David_NC »
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Whats the scoop with CA marriage on the ballot?
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2008, 08:52:37 AM »
Here's a 'Freedom to Marry Timeline' compliments of the NY Times www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/marriage_basics/history/timeline.php
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,002
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: Whats the scoop with CA marriage on the ballot?
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2008, 09:09:41 AM »
From the link posted above:
What really needs to change in the US is individuals thinking that's what's right for them is the 'true' right.  The individual above, while probably sincere in his Catholic beliefs, needs to realize that they are not my beliefs, as I am not a Catholic.  He has the freedom of speech and to worship as he sees fit, but he does not have the right to force those beliefs on me (or anybody else). 

He would probably say you are forcing your beliefs on him by having the government endorse same-sex marriage.

This "freedom of speech" argument doesn't hold water. No one is telling this guy he can't say same-sex marriage is wrong or fight against it's legislation. If a company decides to take a stand on a political issue they need to expect criticism and possibly financial consequences.

Offline randym431

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,115
Re: Whats the scoop with CA marriage on the ballot?
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2008, 10:12:58 AM »
Quote
edited to add:
I've always thought that we're going about this the wrong way.  We, as a country, need to define what we now consider 'marriage' as a group of civil rights/benefits with a different name.  Then, the word 'marriage' can belong to whatever group or religion wants it.  After all, strip away the rights/benefits and it's just another word.

Thats another issue, in that the word marriage was a term pertaining to legal rights and property between two people. The fundies were the ones that inserted "religion" into the term “marriage”.
Somewhere I came across (once) with the history of marriage, that it was created to define property rights and legal issues only.

If the term marriage was, say, "religious" oriented, then ALL marriages would have to be conducted in a church or religious site.
Many people get married at city hall, at sea, or Las Vegas with having no religious connections.

I too once thought if they just called it "civil unions", we could live with it that way. But when you look into civil unions closer, they do not contain
the same legal rights and protection as a legal marriage.

I still think its kinda a cop out for politicians to say "I'm against same sex marriage, but ok with civil unions",
because they know no person in the US congress will EVER put forth an amendment creating federal "civil unions" law(s).
Nada gona happen, no way no how. So instead, gay political organizations decided to go right for the throat with all inclusive and legal "marriage".
And I now totally agree with going that route.

“Marriage” contains and pertains to legal issues between two people. NOT religious issues. That’s a fundies perversion being pulled on the voters.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2008, 10:15:50 AM by randym431 »

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Whats the scoop with CA marriage on the ballot?
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2008, 10:34:19 AM »
Thats another issue, in that the word marriage was a term pertaining to legal rights and property between two people. The fundies were the ones that inserted "religion" into the term “marriage”.

I believe you're right.  D and I were married in Montreal.  It was civil only and had absolutely nothing religious about it.... sort of like having a justice of the peace perform it here in the US.  I sometimes think we'd have greater success if we got all the same rights and benefits as marriage in a civil union.  After that stumbling block, we could then go after the 'M' word if we felt the need.  Sometimes all or nothing approaches don't work, and I sure hope this isn't going to be one of those cases.  Once people have adjusted to our relationships being just as valid in day to day living, perhaps they wouldn't feel threatened by us also saying we're married instead of unionized.  After all, what I really want are the spousal benefits, not a title!

David
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline lydgate

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Virgin, can't drive
Re: Whats the scoop with CA marriage on the ballot?
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2008, 11:05:01 AM »
http://www.richarddelevan.com/2008/05/16/california-gay-marriage-the-delevan-solution/

(Posting links rather than writing a full post, sorry! -- lazy sleepy summer morning is my "excuse.")
« Last Edit: July 17, 2008, 11:10:42 AM by lydgate »
Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

George Eliot, Middlemarch, final paragraph

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.