Guest lvdkeyes Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 California Proposition 8 Same Sex Marriage Ban Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.) Option Vote% Total Votes YES 52% 5,163,908 NO 48% 4,760,336 95 % Reporting Updated 2008-11-05 10:24:10 EST Quote
Gaybutton Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 A similar proposition to allow gay marriage was also on the Florida ballot. It too was rejected. The fact that the USA still stigmatizes gay rights robbed us of some of the joy of the Obama victory. It could have been worse. If McCain had won, gay marriage would still have been rejected. Quote
Guest lvdkeyes Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 If McCain had won, gay marriage would still have been rejected. You are right. The propositions passing had nothing to do with who won the election. Quote
Guest Steve1903 Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 Suppose we can't have everything we want in life. In the grand scheme of things if I was given the choice of changing BOTH results around I think I'd leave well alone. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 If you are a confirmed butterfly in Thailand, then I guess gay marriage in California or anywhere else, is no big deal. It would be nice to treat both gay and hetro the same way, but looks like America is not ready for that. Quote
KhorTose Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 You are right. The propositions passing had nothing to do with who won the election. Not quite true. The majority of the no votes came from the black community, who are still very homophobic. Sadly, this attitude not only hurt us on this initiative, but also is the main reason for the high incidence of HIV in the black community. Obama, who I have supported with my time and money, does not believe in gay marriage. However, he does support full rights for gay couples. To me, this is fine. Call it an abomination if you want, but give us the same state and federal rights that straight couples enjoy. On another note, this will be challenged in the courts and we should win in the California Supreme Court. Quote
Gaybutton Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 To me, the saddest aspect is, given the number of popular votes McCain got, a hell of a lot of people in the USA were ready to accept the first black president or the first female vice-president. That's definitely progress, but they're still not ready to accept, at least not fully, gay people. I hate to break the news, USA, but gay people do exist. Quite a number exist and our lives have meaning just as everyone else's. Sorry if so many dislike it, but we want our rights too, just like anyone else. I would have thought the gay community would at least have had support from the right-to-lifers. After all, you're not going to find too many gay couples heading for the local abortion clinic. MonkeySee says, "If you are a confirmed butterfly in Thailand, then I guess gay marriage in California or anywhere else, is no big deal." I disagree in that, while it may not affect us directly, the indirect ramifications, I think, are significant. Black people do not want to be judged by the color of their skin. By the same thinking I, as a gay person, do not want to be judged by the sex with whom I prefer to share my bed. If you still find yourself having to sometimes hide the fact that you're gay, then something is still really wrong. For instance, when customs officials check your electronics for evidence of gay porn, you can end up really hassled if they find any. I never hear about hassles involving them discovering straight porn. Maybe it happens, but I never hear anything about it. You also get hassled if they think you travel to Thailand, at least in part, as a gay sex tourist, even if there is no suspicion that under-age sex was involved. Would someone please explain to me what's wrong with traveling to a location where sex, legal sex, is readily available if that's what you wish to do? As long as no laws are being broken, why should your sexual liaisons be anyone's business other than your own? Things change with the times. People keep saying that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. In case nobody noticed, marriage today is not the same as it was many years ago. It's not even the same as it was just a few years ago. Way back when, a married woman was close to being a slave for her husband. The marriage vows used to include, for the woman, a promise to love, honor, and obey. Divorce used to be virtually unthinkable. In other words, the institution of marriage, in and of itself, has not changed, but the paradigm of how it works in practicality has definitely changed. Life for gay people is certainly better than it used to be, but there is still a long way to go. I hope we are able to see full gay rights within our lifetimes. There is a very good movie appropriate to the issue of gay rights, "A Very British Sex Scandal." It's a true story about what life was like for gays in the UK during the late 1940's and 1950's. Much of the same was true in the USA. If you've never seen that movie, I highly recommend it. Quote
Guest buaseng Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 There is a very good movie appropriate to the issue of gay rights, "A Very British Sex Scandal." It's a true story about what life was like for gays in the UK during the late 1940's and 1950's. Much of the same was true in the USA. If you've never seen that movie, I highly recommend it. Yes, well worth viewing but unfortunately it does not have sub-titles for our American cousins! Those from our former colonies need to be bi-lingual to understand it properly Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 A similar proposition to allow gay marriage was also on the Florida ballot. It too was rejected. The fact that the USA still stigmatizes gay rights robbed us of some of the joy of the Obama victory. It could have been worse. If McCain had won, gay marriage would still have been rejected. Arizona also passed a proposition to ban gay marriage. Arkansas passed a proposal to ban same-sex couples from adopting a child. I guess in Arkansas, if you want to adopt and are gay, then you have to be single. Conservative Americans want gays to stay in the closet. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 California Proposition 8 Same Sex Marriage Ban Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.) Option Vote% Total Votes YES 52% 5,163,908 NO 48% 4,760,336 95 % Reporting Updated 2008-11-05 10:24:10 EST I wonder if the more than 18,000 gay couples that have been married in California since the Supreme Court ruling there, are now no longer married. I should think this proposition would not change their status, but who knows! Quote
Guest lvdkeyes Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Yes, well worth viewing but unfortunately it does not have sub-titles for our American cousins! Those from our former colonies need to be bi-lingual to understand it properly Are these kinds of snide remarks really necessary? Quote
Guest topjohn5 Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 I have always said that the easiest way to get what we want is to avoid the term marriage completely. Let straight and only straight people get "married" (for now, lol)....call it civil union or whatever. Some believe this is a cop-out and not full rights but I don't care what it's called (and i realize some people do care). As long as it gets the job done and I get the same rights no matter what its called. The reality is once we have the same rights no matter legally what its called the average person will call it marriage anyway and then it is marriage, lol......If all that has to happen to get the job done is give away the word marriage for a while so be it...... Avoid the word marriage and avoid the religious implications and give the folks in power some breathing room to get the same legal things for us. Quote
Guest Steve1903 Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Surely to get the same - or similar - rights each partner merely has to write out a will. Or is that not correct? Never been big on the marriage thing myself and find it hard to understand why it seems so mega important to many people. Quote
Gaybutton Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Surely to get the same - or similar - rights each partner merely has to write out a will. I don't understand what you mean. I'm looking for rights while still alive. Also, if nothing else, in the USA married couples have a tremendous tax advantage over single people. Some gay couples wish to be married for religious reasons. While some may not see gay marriage as a major problem, or use of the term as a major problem, enough people do so that the issue is beginning to end up on ballots. To me, whether actually being married under the law is not so important, the fact that gay couples cannot choose to be married is a denial of their rights. To me, denying people the right to get married because they are gay is no different from telling a black person he cannot drink from this water fountain because he is black. Quote
Guest laurence Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Surely to get the same - or similar - rights each partner merely has to write out a will. Or is that not correct? Not correct! Depends on your State. Some states have no inheritance tax while others tax bequest to other than immediate family. But some states have domestic partner laws which may negate inheritance taxes. I have friends in Calif who have been partners for years but declined to get married when they had a chance. Not sure why. Quote
Guest topjohn5 Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Surely to get the same - or similar - rights each partner merely has to write out a will. Or is that not correct? Never been big on the marriage thing myself and find it hard to understand why it seems so mega important to many people. There are actually 1138 Federal (many others in the States) protections, rights and privilages that go with marriage. Items that you can't get by contract (like a will) that a married couple gets automatically and that 2 gay men can't: GB mentioned the tax advantages already I can't bring my foreign "male bride" to the USA Not being compelled to testify in a trial against your partner Visitation rights in jail, or even a hospital Having everything automatically go to you if you didn't have a will SSI and medicare beneficiary benefits Vast numbers of military service benefits Anyway, the list is huge and can't be don't without legislation eventually, Federal..... Quote
Guest buaseng Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Are these kinds of snide remarks really necessary? Why snide? Trust lvdkeyes to jump to the wrong conclusion - yet again! He may one of the few Americans who has a complete understanding of the different meanings of words and phrases when using the English language correctly (but I very much doubt it). The film employs words, phrases and terminology in it that a lot of Americans would not understand or find confusing, having a totally different meaning in the two forms of the language. Quote
Gaybutton Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 a lot of Americans would not understand or find confusing, having a totally different meaning in the two forms of the language. Why do you make that assumption? I understood everything and I'm American. Most Americans who are at least semi well-read and have a halfway decent education would likely also understand. Perhaps we Americans are not quite so ignorant as you appear to believe. I can also understand why Lvdkeyes felt that you were being snide, even if you truly were not trying to be. You don't deny that you have before posted cutting remarks about the American version of English, do you? I recall a recent post of yours in which you said that American English is nothing more than a bastardized version of real English. Some Americans might not appreciate those kinds of remarks and would consider them snide. After reading that sort of post from you, a logical interpretation of your post above would be that you meant it as a snide remark. I'm glad to know that's not the way you meant it. In all honesty, I haven't seen the need for those remarks either. Simply because we do not speak or spell English precisely the same as you do, that doesn't somehow make us lesser people than you. Even if it does, why post about it at all, especially when what you're saying about American English really has nothing to do with the thread at hand in the first place? For me, the only time I have any problem understanding the British form of English is when some of the accents are so thick that I can't make out what is being said. There are also several British food item terms that I find difficult to understand. Other than that, I have no problem "understanding English." Quote
Guest Geezer Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 I think many Brits would find the following statement rude and prejudiced. “He may one of the few Americans who has a complete understanding of the different meanings of words and phrases when using the English language correctly…” It also implies that one considers one's self to have a complete understanding. I wonder if anyone’s understanding is complete. Buaseng writes, “The film employs words, phrases and terminology in it that a lot of Americans would not understand or find confusing...” There may be some in benighted former colonies who would consider the words, “in it”, to be superfluous in the foregoing sentence and a poor usage of the language. The only languages which don’t change are dead languages. Languages change with time, with social groups, and with geography. To choose a single usage as the only correct one reveals a very provincial mindset. Could there a bit of French blood in buaseng’s veins? Quote
Guest laurence Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Like others, I took buaseng's remarks as snide but, in truth, not far from the truth. Whenever I watch a Brit TV show I can only understand about 50% of the dialogue especially if it is the "commoners" speaking. Give me subtitles! Wasn't it that famous Englishman, Professor Henry Higgins, who asked "why can't the English learn to speak?" Or something like that. Quote
Gaybutton Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Wasn't it that famous Englishman, Professor Henry Higgins, who asked "why can't the English learn to speak?" Or something like that. It was: Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? Norwegians learn Norwegian. The Greeks all learn their Greek. If you spoke as she does, sir, instead of the way you do, Why you might be selling flowers too. - My Fair Lady Quote
Guest Steve1903 Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 "Whenever I watch a Brit TV show I can only understand about 50% of the dialogue especially if it is the "commoners" speaking. Give me subtitles!" I'd love to see your reaction to a "Scottish made" TV show then!! Even the English need subtitles for some of them. Quote
Guest buaseng Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 Like others, I took buaseng's remarks as snide but, in truth, not far from the truth. Whenever I watch a Brit TV show I can only understand about 50% of the dialogue especially if it is the "commoners" speaking. Give me subtitles! Proves the point I was making exactly - QED Quote
Guest lvdkeyes Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 Proves the point I was making exactly - QED It only proves that there is a difference between speaking properly and not. Loads of Brits say things like "be uh" for better and "si ee" for city, completely ignoring that there are T's in those words. As you know, or should know, the lower classes in UK as well as in other countries don't speak their language correctly. In US we speak a dialect of English, which doesn't make it incorrect. Quote
PattayaMale Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 It only proves that there is a difference between speaking properly and not. Loads of Brits say things like "be uh" for better and "si ee" for city, completely ignoring that there are T's in those words. As you know, or should know, the lower classes in UK as well as in other countries don't speak their language correctly. In US we speak a dialect of English, which doesn't make it incorrect. In the USA we also have many different "accents" that make understanding each other a bit different. While traveling in the USA, there is a midwest, Boston, southern, Texas, cay jun, even a Tennessee "accent". Then there is a Hispanic and Black accent or dialect. Have you ever talked with Geezer? He writes very well, but I can't understand a thing he says Quote
