Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 112625 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #325 on: August 06, 2008, 06:00:19 PM »
Oh he's trying to make a funny.  Very good Straw Man.  I've previously said you are more entertaining when you try and make jokes.  Nice job. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #326 on: August 06, 2008, 06:04:18 PM »
and I've previously said that I wish (and I'm still waiting) for you to say anything that makes me laugh

mostly I'm just creeped out

no offense

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #327 on: August 06, 2008, 06:10:44 PM »
None taken.  I think you're weird, but I don't know you.  Anyone who gets offended by things typed on an anonymous message board needs to rearrange their priorities. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #328 on: August 06, 2008, 08:19:20 PM »
None taken.  I think you're weird, but I don't know you.  Anyone who gets offended by things typed on an anonymous message board needs to rearrange their priorities. 

first rational thing I've seen you write in a long time

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #329 on: August 06, 2008, 08:21:31 PM »
 ::)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #330 on: August 06, 2008, 08:27:39 PM »

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #331 on: August 06, 2008, 11:39:35 PM »
That's a good point.  Playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker, but someone who does is using sexuality for money.

You're making an unfair assumption based upon your own imagination or lack thereof.

'Hooker' is simply a job title. it's quite possible to establish someone's job title or "occupation" in a script without actually having them perform the job in question. Given time restraints, that is more often than not what occurs.
One can easily portray a hooker without using ones sexuality.

ie: Law & Order - the detectives interview a "neurosurgeon" in his home. Do they have to show the guy performing brain surgery to establish his character's occupation ... no they don't do they.

A chef: Dress the guy up in a funny white hat, stick him in a restaurant, and voila. What culinary skills has he used?
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #332 on: August 06, 2008, 11:45:09 PM »
You're making an unfair assumption based upon your own imagination or lack thereof.

'Hooker' is simply a job title. it's quite possible to establish someone's job title or "occupation" in a script without actually having them perform the job in question. Given time restraints, that is more often than not what occurs.
One can easily portray a hooker without using ones sexuality.

ie: Law & Order - the detectives interview a "neurosurgeon" in his home. Do they have to show the guy performing brain surgery to establish his character's occupation ... no they don't do they.

A chef: Dress the guy up in a funny white hat, stick him in a restaurant, and voila. What culinary skills has he used?


Pure semantics.  A hooker is defined by the fact she has sex for money. 

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #333 on: August 07, 2008, 12:01:38 AM »
Pure semantics.  A hooker is defined by the fact she has sex for money. 

In real life perhaps, ...however on film, ...it's a whole other story. In films, she is defined by a stereotype.
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #334 on: August 07, 2008, 12:04:24 AM »
In real life perhaps, ...however on film, ...it's a whole other story. In films, she is defined by a stereotype.

More semantics.  In what movie is a hooker not someone who sells sex for money?  The stereotype is she sells her body for money, which is an accurate stereotype. 

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #335 on: August 07, 2008, 12:56:16 AM »
More semantics.  In what movie is a hooker not someone who sells sex for money?  The stereotype is she sells her body for money, which is an accurate stereotype. 

No, ...the stereotype is a woman dressed in a micro-mini, fish net stockings and loud rabbit fur jacket.

Toss in some big hair, loud gaudy jewelry, have her chew gum like Britney Spears and voila... film industry hooker!
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #336 on: August 07, 2008, 12:19:08 PM »
No, ...the stereotype is a woman dressed in a micro-mini, fish net stockings and loud rabbit fur jacket.

Toss in some big hair, loud gaudy jewelry, have her chew gum like Britney Spears and voila... film industry hooker!

Yes, but in what scenario is a hooker not someone who sells sex?  She (or he) doesn't have to actually stand on a corner or be in the bed with someone to convey that they are a hooker, but however they portray their character, the substance of his/her occupation does not change. 

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #337 on: August 07, 2008, 12:56:14 PM »
Yes, but in what scenario is a hooker not someone who sells sex?  She (or he) doesn't have to actually stand on a corner or be in the bed with someone to convey that they are a hooker, but however they portray their character, the substance of his/her occupation does not change. 

The discussion wasn't about the definition of a hooker, ...but whether or not I'd used my sexuality to portay one.

Can we get this thread back on-topic please? ...you know, ...all about how California is going to hell because two men or two women will be able to call their legal union a 'marriage'?

thanks
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #338 on: August 07, 2008, 01:55:29 PM »
The discussion wasn't about the definition of a hooker, ...but whether or not I'd used my sexuality to portay one.

Can we get this thread back on-topic please? ...you know, ...all about how California is going to hell because two men or two women will be able to call their legal union a 'marriage'?

thanks

A hooker is defined by the fact she sells sex, which makes it impossible to portray a hooker without using "sexuality."  But I'm starting to repeat myself.  This horse is about dead. 

Back to the discussion of the men in black and how they trampled on the will of the people of California.  McWay has pretty much nailed the issues in this thread.   

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #339 on: August 07, 2008, 06:36:24 PM »
A hooker is defined by the fact she sells sex, which makes it impossible to portray a hooker without using "sexuality."  But I'm starting to repeat myself.  This horse is about dead. 

Impossible to portray, and impossible to conceive of, ...only for those void of any imagination.
Yes you're repeating yourself. Maybe you should stick to things you actually know about, ...filmmaking isn't one of them.
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #340 on: August 07, 2008, 09:50:32 PM »
Impossible to portray, and impossible to conceive of, ...only for those void of any imagination.
Yes you're repeating yourself. Maybe you should stick to things you actually know about, ...filmmaking isn't one of them.

Thanks Einstein.   ::)  I expect more from someone with a 160 IQ.  Or did you only portray someone with a 160 IQ?   

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #341 on: August 07, 2008, 10:03:33 PM »
That's a good point.  Playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker, but someone who does is using sexuality for money.  I don't think this is necessarily a criticism of any actor. 

But . . . you have to draw the line somewhere.  Like Ving Rhames (sp?).  I don't care what role he plays or how much of a tough guy he trys to be, he will always be the guy who got raped in Pulp Fiction.   :o   

Bum - I've read through this thread again and I have to admit you've finally made me laugh.
 
I'm talking about your realization that "playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker"

hilarious 

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #342 on: August 08, 2008, 02:15:30 PM »
Judge upholds redefined Prop. 8 ballot language
Jeff Johnson
8/8/2008 11:25:00
www.onenewsnow.com


Pro-family attorneys are vowing to go back to court to get biased, pro-homosexual language removed from the ballot title and summary for the California marriage protection amendment.

The amendment states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But somehow, Attorney General Jerry Brown reinterpreted that as eliminating "the right of same-sex couples to marry." Timothy Chandler, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), was in Superior Court in California Thursday arguing that Brown's editorializing is illegal.
 
"The issue before the voters is whether or not California should define marriage as between one man and one woman," Chandler explains. "And rather than presenting it that way to the voters, the attorney general got political with it."
 
Instead of providing a neutral and unbiased ballot title and summary, says the ADF attorney, Brown bowed to "political pressure" and "gave a biased and prejudicial summary" -- in effect failing to follow his obligation under state law. "The attorney general is required by law to provide an objective summary of what the proposition would do to the law," Chandler explains.
 
But the Superior Court disagreed Friday, ruling that Brown was within his rights to define the amendment as taking away rights, even though those alleged rights were only recently created by the California Supreme Court.

"In this case, the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, even if the initiative also has other purposes and effects," wrote Judge Timothy Frawley. "The Attorney General's title is an accurate statement of the primary purpose and effect of the measure. It is not argumentative or inherently prejudicial."

The original ballot title described the amendment as a change to the state constitution that would "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Chandler hopes a three-judge panel of the California Appellate Court will overturn Frawley's decision.
 
"This is an emergency petition to try to get the court to order the attorney general to provide a [sic] unbiased ballot title and summary before the ballots are begun to be printed here in California, which starts next week," says Chandler.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com say they intend to file the appeal immediately.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19428
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #343 on: August 08, 2008, 02:54:43 PM »
 ;D

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #344 on: August 08, 2008, 02:59:06 PM »
Judge upholds redefined Prop. 8 ballot language
Jeff Johnson
8/8/2008 11:25:00
www.onenewsnow.com


Pro-family attorneys are vowing to go back to court to get biased, pro-homosexual language removed from the ballot title and summary for the California marriage protection amendment.

The amendment states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But somehow, Attorney General Jerry Brown reinterpreted that as eliminating "the right of same-sex couples to marry." Timothy Chandler, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), was in Superior Court in California Thursday arguing that Brown's editorializing is illegal.
 
"The issue before the voters is whether or not California should define marriage as between one man and one woman," Chandler explains. "And rather than presenting it that way to the voters, the attorney general got political with it."
 
Instead of providing a neutral and unbiased ballot title and summary, says the ADF attorney, Brown bowed to "political pressure" and "gave a biased and prejudicial summary" -- in effect failing to follow his obligation under state law. "The attorney general is required by law to provide an objective summary of what the proposition would do to the law," Chandler explains.
 
But the Superior Court disagreed Friday, ruling that Brown was within his rights to define the amendment as taking away rights, even though those alleged rights were only recently created by the California Supreme Court.

"In this case, the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, even if the initiative also has other purposes and effects," wrote Judge Timothy Frawley. "The Attorney General's title is an accurate statement of the primary purpose and effect of the measure. It is not argumentative or inherently prejudicial."

The original ballot title described the amendment as a change to the state constitution that would "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Chandler hopes a three-judge panel of the California Appellate Court will overturn Frawley's decision.
 
"This is an emergency petition to try to get the court to order the attorney general to provide a [sic] unbiased ballot title and summary before the ballots are begun to be printed here in California, which starts next week," says Chandler.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com say they intend to file the appeal immediately.

This will wind up with the same panel of judges that started this whole mess?   ::)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19428
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #345 on: August 08, 2008, 03:10:02 PM »
This will wind up with the same panel of judges that started this whole mess?   ::)

I don't believe so.  This latest appeal will be heard by the California Appellate Court.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/

The California Supreme Court effectively started this.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #346 on: August 08, 2008, 03:12:31 PM »
This will wind up with the same panel of judges that started this whole mess?   ::)

Actually the people who started the mess were the religious nutbags who initiated the proposition


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #347 on: August 08, 2008, 03:14:35 PM »
lol.  And all those nutbags who voted for it?  lol . . .

 ::)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19428
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #348 on: August 08, 2008, 03:15:56 PM »
Actually the people who started the mess were the religious nutbags who initiated the proposition



I wonder how many of their marriages have dissolved since this started.  :-[

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #349 on: August 08, 2008, 03:18:46 PM »
lol.  And all those nutbags who voted for it?  lol . . .

 ::)

yep - those too

they should all mind their own fucking business and Focus on their own Families