Miss California - Same Sex Marriage-Perez Hilton

[Nova]

Studies by Ivanka Savic et al....

The first two are dicussed, but the third study you mention is actually demonstrated in the BBC doc I mentioned. John Barrowman, an openly gay British stage and TV star, has the MRI done and they broadcast the results. As you suggest, the brain responses actually occur even before the subject is aware of them and able to make any "choice."

 

[Nova]

I'd like to say that I took comparative religion in college...

I "thanked" you for the post above, but want to add that the infinite variety of Her creations should only add to our wonder at the glory of God. (If one believes in Her. If not, no problem in my book.)

 

[Nova]

Thought I'd post...my mom just called.
Her neighbors, Bob and Jim, are celebrating their 47th (FORTY SEVENTH) anniversary today. Wow.
And they stayed together because they love eachother, not because of some piece of paper.
I hope that someday soon, the fact that marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT will matter...

:blowkiss:

So obviously gay people don't require legal sanction to form "real" marriages.

I just want to add that what we do need, just like straight couples, is the ability to legally secure our homes, children, inheritances, etc.

During the decades I've been with Mr. Nova, I've seen my bio father exactly 3 times. Yet if I died tomorrow, in the state where he lives my dad could sue for my half of this house and the rest of my estate, trying to take these away from my husband and step-children. (I very much doubt he could win, since we live in California and CA law would prevail, but such "home invasions" by "legal" relatives happen everyday.)

This is just one of the problems that gay civil marriage can help to cure.

(Yes, I have a will and that helps, too, but wills can be contested)

 

[EmMomma]

:blowkiss:

So obviously gay people don't require legal sanction to form "real" marriages.

I just want to add that what we do need, just like straight couples, is the ability to legally secure our homes, children, inheritances, etc.

During the decades I've been with Mr. Nova, I've seen my bio father exactly 3 times. Yet if I died tomorrow, in the state where he lives my dad could sue for my half of this house and the rest of my estate, trying to take these away from my husband and step-children. (I very much doubt he could win, since we live in California and CA law would prevail, but such "home invasions" by "legal" relatives happen everyday.)

This is just one of the problems that gay civil marriage can help to cure.

(Yes, I have a will and that helps, too, but wills can be contested)

Aw, Nova.
Even for those who cite "religion" as their reason for being against gay civil unions/marriages/whateveryouwantotcallit, it should be obvious that to not be afforded the rights you mention is in violation of gay people's CIVIL RIGHTS.
It's such a basic concept. Why the uproar? *sigh*

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Aw, Nova.
Even for those who cite "religion" as their reason for being against gay civil unions/marriages/whateveryouwantotcallit, it should be obvious that to not be afforded the rights you mention is in violation of gay people's CIVIL RIGHTS.
It's such a basic concept. Why the uproar? *sigh*

I don't understand why there can't be terms for different things. A marriage is between a man and a woman and a civil union is between two men or two women. We use the words gay, straight, lesbian, etc. Why do some words have to be the same and some words have to be different. Why can't legal rights be given without redefining what the word marriage means? It seems like a simple solution that meets the will of most people.

 

[southcitymom]

I don't understand why there can't be terms for different things. A marriage is between a man and a woman and a civil union is between two men or two women. We use the words gay, straight, lesbian, etc. Why do some words have to be the same and some words have to be different. Why can't legal rights be given without redefining what the word marriage means? It seems like a simple solution that meets the will of most people.

I hear your point but why not call it what it is? Marriage is not just a religious term, but also a legal term. Why create another legal term to describe the exact same thing? Should we have created yet another another legal term to describe interracial marriages? Nope, we just brought those relationships into the fold where they should have been all along. Calling gay marriages something other than what they are (marriages) would just be one more way of saying those relationships are something different, when in fact they are not.

The only way I could kind of see this happening is if we called all marriages at the courthouse civil unions and then make the term marriage only apply to unions in churches. But even that gets silly - plenty of gay couples are married in churches and plenty of straight couples go to the courthouse.

If we give it a separate term - gays are "civil unioned" but heteros are "married" - colloquial use of marriage will still take over - no one is going to introduce a couple - gay or hetero - as "civil unioned" - they are going to introduce them as married because that's what they are.

Better in every way for the States to recognize that all relationships have the right to share in the many benefits of marriage - and then let the churches do whatever they like.

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

My solution is a compromise. I think that the majority of the US is willing to compromise and give the same legal rights to everyone, but the ones that reject using the term civil union tend to be the same ones that say they want the same legal rights.

 

[Nova]

My solution is a compromise. I think that the majority of the US is willing to compromise and give the same legal rights to everyone, but the ones that reject using the term civil union tend to be the same ones that say they want the same legal rights.

The "ones" to which you refer must include the members of the California Supreme Court, who went on for 150 pages as to why your solution falls short of equal rights.

Don't get me wrong: domestic partnerships are better than nothing at all. Unfortunately, a number of states have passed laws that ban partnerships as well as gay marriages.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the basic problem is that once you call something by a different name, you announce it is "not the same" and that's pretty much a synonym for "not real."

Now religious people have every right to consider my marriage "not real" as a religious sacrament in their denominations. I am not "married" in the Mormon religious sense, nor do I claim to be. But religious people should not have the right to consider my marriage "not real" or "different than" for legal purposes. (Social purposes are often different. People who disapprove of gay marriage have every right not to attend one, not to come to my home, not to invite me to their homes, etc.)

 

[CyberLaw]

Miss California made this a "bible and religious" issue. She even said that this is "biblically" correct, but not politically correct.

So this is what I do not get. Of course we all understand "biblically" correct, that is the "GWB" era and I understand that "this "view" is popular amongst some people of "that era" and the "right".

But when you say politically correct, I want to gag, really I do, because I see it as "upholding" the human rights of all people and not offending people. It is called respect and consideration for all people, regardless of whom they love and want to spend their life with.

 

[southcitymom]

My solution is a compromise. I think that the majority of the US is willing to compromise and give the same legal rights to everyone, but the ones that reject using the term civil union tend to be the same ones that say they want the same legal rights.

I'm a mediator and so compromise is my bread and butter, but - like many people - there are some things I am not willing to compromise on and basic civil rights for all humans is one of those things.

Greater legal minds than mine have discussed why "civil union" instead of "marriage" fails to meet the standard of equal rights. I know California discussed it at some length in their decision.

In this particular discussion, compromise hints at tolerance. But I don't want us as a country to tolerate gay unions - I want us to accept them.

 

[angelmom]

I agree that consenting adults should be given equal legal and civil rights. And I understand that some people are just getting hung up on the word marriage.

My only concern is that any laws protect the rights of religious institutions to decide who can marry in their faith. As we have seen with the abortion issue, once broad permission is granted it becomes easier and easier for religious freedoms to be chipped away in the quest for equal rights.

Pharmacists are losing their jobs over refusal to dispense RU486, there are concerns about FOCA and Catholic hospitals, and currently in our community a big discussion about public high schools who use a local ginormous church for their graduation ceremonies (because of the crosses in the architecture - GMAB! I think they should feel free to find another venue big enough that will rent to them for less than a bajillion dollars on a weekend and save me the traffic headache, but that's just me.)

If the solution were really so simple, it would have been done years ago. And, as the president said so eloquently last night, one of our best virtues is that we stick to our principals even when it is hard. Also, that "the ship of state is an ocean liner, not a speed boat." With those two things in mind, I think it is critical that sufficient thought be put into how the laws are written so that they are not constantly having to be amended when problems arise. Those types of things only provide ammunition for the enemies of equality and justice.

 

[Nova]

Angelmom, yours is an excellent post that I can't even begin to fully address, but I don't want it to seem to be ignored.

Yes, rights do sometimes conflict and the courts have to sort it out. (Though in terms of religious rights, some of the complaints we hear are really that the believer can't force his/her beliefs on others, which is NOT a religious right.)

But one of my lawyer friends tells me that courts are very reluctant to rule on hypotheticals, citing the difficulty of predicting future contexts and the overload on the court system if judges were required to make "what if" rulings.

And we don't usually deny civil rights to a class of people for fear those rights might cause some legal conflict in the future.

I know this isn't the medical-provider thread and we have just such a thread elsewhere, but because I don't want to seem like I am dismissing your concern out of hand, I will add that I don't really understand why a pharmacy (whether a chain or "mom and pop") can't decide what merchandise it will and won't sell. The right to contraception isn't necessarily a right to perfectly convenient contraception. On the other hand, doctors are licensed; shouldn't their patients have a right to ALL the relevant medical info, not just the info the doctor personally finds morally acceptable? What if a doctor decides antibiotics interfere with God's will and refuses to prescribe them? (This is a rhetorical question. I know we're not debating the issue here.)

 

[southcitymom]

I spent all day yesterday thinking about angel's post - in the end, I had too much in my head to even respond. But it is a great post, and I completely agree that we need to be mindful of religious freedoms and choices. Still, we didn't let popular religious beliefs concerning slavery or interracial marriage stop us from evolving upwards as regards those issues - and we shouldn't let them stop us from doing the same with this one.

 

[LinasK]

Without choosing sides in this answer I will say the following. Listening to her answer I "cringed". I cringed not because of her opinion, but because of her inability to articulate her feelings in a way that both answered the question and remained respectful to both sides of the issue. As Miss USA you serve as an ambassador of the United States. An ambassador should be able to remain neutral when appropriate and guage answers based upon her environment. She failed to properly answer the question and in essence alienated a very large portion of America with her response. Now as far as Perez......he is a highly controversial and often offensive blogger who makes his living off of gossip and harassing celebrities. BUT he asked a fair question and knowing that he was a judge she should have been prepared to answer a question while remaining respectful. I don't agree with him calling her a dumb bi**h but he does that on a daily basis on his website so it was just another day at the office for him. Personally, I think the Miss USA pageant is a joke. Why do we need a swimsuit category in order to deem you worth of representing the US. I think real US ambassadors have proven themselves on the world stage and haven't found it necessary to parade around in a teeny bikini to prove their worth. Should she have used the stage as a platform for her personal beliefs? No. She said "no" based on her opinion, but a much better way to put it would have been to discuss equal rights, progress that has been made in that arena and that while she considers marriage to be something only a man and woman could share that our world is changing and evolving and that she sees it as a possibility down the road. Everyone would have been happy. She is sour grapes right now and true colors are being displayed. So who thinks pageants are real now??? That in and of itself should show us the best one "won". FWIW JMO Don't kill the messenger. And all that other stuff. Peace.

Excellent post, best one of the thread I've read so far!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[LinasK]

I know it was Perez... it's a play on words LOL :blowkiss:

That's why Perez picked it. His real name is Mario L.

 

[LinasK]

First of all, if the "bible" was "followed" as law, then stoning people who commit adultery would be acceptable. No where does it say in the Bible that men cannot have same sex relationships. People who "skew" the message and make up their own meanings are the people you have to wonder about.

You see Miss CA is not fit to "represent the views" of all Americans. Her views are "her own" and her churches, which is not inclusive.

Therefore I am extremely glad that Miss CA did not win . You see she might be required to "visit" one of "those" people in her duties as Miss USA. Maybe she would have to be go a "gay event" or an AIDS hospice for men dying of AIDS. She will have a problem obviously with this as "her church" views take precedent.

Perez Hilton asked this question because of the Prop in CA, that "took" away the rights of people. The organizers "knew" that this questions was going to be asked as it was "vetted" before the show.

The reason why Canada has same sex marriage, is that the "top" court ruled that it is discriminatory for gay men not to have the "same rights" and protections as a married couple as a "heterosexual couple.

It comes down to human rights...........

Exactly!:clap::clap::clap: Once again CyberLaw, you get it! I'm honored to be posting with you!

 

[southcitymom]

Not only a boob, but a fake boob....http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=192630050563&h=SVkum&u=-9nvK&ref=nf

ETA - if you have had breast implants, I am not making fun of you. Some good friends of mine have had the procedure. This post is only meant to make fun of Miss Cally and the whole pageant world.

 

[southcitymom]

Jugs for Jesus....an important part of traditional family values, I think.

 

[SuziQ]

"Perez Hilton looks like an intellectual titan and some sort of civil rights leader, and the new poster girl against same sex marriage is not just a boob but a fake boob."
- Keith Olbermann said on his MSNBC show.

http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-03-quote-of-the-day-502

 

[SuziQ]

Not only a boob, but a fake boob....http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=192630050563&h=SVkum&u=-9nvK&ref=nf

ETA - if you have had breast implants, I am not making fun of you. Some good friends of mine have had the procedure. This post is only meant to make fun of Miss Cally and the whole pageant world.

Wow, did all the other girls get the same opportunity so the competition would be an even playing field?