Cowardly "No on Prop. 8" supporters in California?

[Hugo Chavez]

you said there are not that many mormons in CA.  Bill Maher said yesterday that they put 20 million into prop 8.  I know I always hated it when outside money came into our state to effect state election choices.  pissed me off to the max... If this is true, I would be pissed too.

[timfogarty]

It's not my fault that gay/bisexual men have the highest rate of HIV/AIDS, either (or that the average life span of gays and lesbians is in the mid 40s).

stop reading hateful propaganda sites already.   that gays only live to 40 comes from Paul Cameron, who has done so much bogus research that the religious right has even stopped using him.  His study compared obituaries in the NY Times in the 1980s and found that most of the obits of gays were of young people while most of the obits of straights were of old.  the problem with such a study:  most people don't get obits in the newspaper, and gays in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s are less likely to be openly gay.

[timfogarty]

Allowing gay marriage makes the US a laughingstock of the world.

Belgium, Canada, Spain, and South Africa allow same sex marriage.  Norway will allow it Jan 1 2009.   Brazil is about to legalize it.

[timfogarty]

Ironically enough, in the first state that legalized gay "marriage" (Massachusettes), girls can get married at age 12.

liar

[timfogarty]

the real reason why so Cal gays are protesting the Mormon Temple and not the First A.M.E. Church:   The Mormon Temple is walking distance from WeHo.

(First AME might not be a good choice anyway, as they tend to be rather progressive)

[drkaje]

Without the rhetoric it's pretty difficult to know which way an honest vote would really fall. In general, it doesn't seem like people want it but it's difficult to say how motivated they would be to vote unless worked into a frenzy.

[MCWAY]

liar

In Massachusetts, under MGL c.207, s. 25, a person under eighteen cannot marry without parental consent . Massachusetts does not have a law specifying the minimum age at which a person can marry with a parent’s consent. The process requires court approval, so whether or not to authorize the marriage of a particular minor is within a judge’s discretion.

Yet if you search the web, several sites suggest either that the minimum age to marry here with parental consent is 14 for boys and 12 for girls, or that it is 16 for both. Where do these ages come from?

The notion of a minimum age of 14 for boys and 12 for girls comes from an 1854 case, Parton v. Hervey, 67 Mass. 119. In this case, a 13-year-old girl got married without her mother’s consent, and her mother was forbidding her from going to live with her new husband. The court ruled that while it is illegal for someone to perform a marriage of a minor, the marriage itself is only voidable, not void. So the minor could get out of the marriage if she wanted to, but that the marriage was not void as a matter of law, as long as the minor was above the “age of consent.”

The case then went on to say that the age of consent in Massachusetts (in 1854) was fourteen for males and twelve for females, and thus the girl was still married and her mother couldn’t keep her from her beloved husband. This case was most recently cited in 1977 in Baird v. Attorney Gen., 371 Mass. 741 , for its basic premise “A marriage ceremony involving a freely assenting minor, acting without parental consent, has been held valid, although, because of the minor's age, the ceremony was performed in violation of law.” This case did not reiterate the ages of 12 and 14.[/b]

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/2007_01_01_archive.html

[MCWAY]

stop reading hateful propaganda sites already.   that gays only live to 40 comes from Paul Cameron, who has done so much bogus research that the religious right has even stopped using him.  His study compared obituaries in the NY Times in the 1980s and found that most of the obits of gays were of young people while most of the obits of straights were of old.  the problem with such a study:  most people don't get obits in the newspaper, and gays in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s are less likely to be openly gay.

Cameron's studies weren't the only one that had those findings, Tim.


From the International Journal of Epidemiology - Modelling the Impact of of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men:


OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men. METHODS: Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age 20 years. For each scenario, non-HIV deaths were distributed according to the assumed proportion of the total population (3%, 6% or 9%) but 95% of HIV deaths were distributed to gay and bisexual men as this is the proportion of AIDS cases in gay and bisexual men in this centre. The main outcome measures of interest were age-specific patterns of death, life expectancy and life expectancy lost due to HIV/AIDS at exact age 20 years, and the probability of living from age 20 to 65 years.

RESULTS: Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16,219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively.  These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the 9% scenario. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%.

CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.


http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657

See also "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" - Dr. John Diggs

http://corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

But, I guess you'll charge that this is a "hateful propganda site", too.

[MCWAY]

It won't matter what people teach your daughter, because she either will feel biochemical reactions when a man touches her hand or she'll feel that way when a woman touches her hand.  People are born that way.  you can't teach me to get a boner when a dude bends over in front of me  I never had to be taught to get a boner when a girl with a nice ass bent over in front of me.


.


well, it had been voted on by judges to make it legal... you do remember that don't you?

And that vote goes by the boards, because of the constitutional amendment. The point, which you apparently didn't remember, is that supporters of gay "marriage" are every bit as able to get initiatives started to define marriage as a mere "two-person" union as their opponents are to ensure that marriage remains a union between a man and a woman.

Yet, we don't see that happening. Again, the only time you vote on this issue is when YOUR OPPONENTS put an amendment on the ballot.

[Straw Man]

Cameron's studies weren't the only one that had those findings, Tim.


From the International Journal of Epidemiology - Modelling the Impact of of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men:


OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men. METHODS: Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age 20 years. For each scenario, non-HIV deaths were distributed according to the assumed proportion of the total population (3%, 6% or 9%) but 95% of HIV deaths were distributed to gay and bisexual men as this is the proportion of AIDS cases in gay and bisexual men in this centre. The main outcome measures of interest were age-specific patterns of death, life expectancy and life expectancy lost due to HIV/AIDS at exact age 20 years, and the probability of living from age 20 to 65 years.

RESULTS: Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16,219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively.  These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the 9% scenario. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%.

CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.


http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657

See also "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" - Dr. John Diggs

http://corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

But, I guess you'll charge that this is a "hateful propganda site", too.

Cameron, a former assistant professor at the University of Nebraska who has consulted for such gay-rights opponents as former Rep. William Dannemeyer, R-Calif., heads a group called the Family Research Institute. Cameron resigned under fire from the American Psychological Association and was later formally terminated from membership following complaints about his research methods. He has had run-ins with other professional groups, including the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. According to Mark Pietrzyk's exposé in the Oct. 3, 1994, New Republic, the state of Colorado initially hired Cameron as an expert witness to defend its statute restricting gay-rights ordinances, then elected not to use his testimony after it got a closer look. His life-span figures have circulated for years in religious-right circles, but Bennett's comments appear to represent their first real breakout into wider public discussion. 

Cameron's method had the virtue of simplicity, at least. He and two co-authors read through back numbers of various urban gay community papers, mostly of the giveaway sort that are laden with bar ads and personals. They counted up obituaries and news stories about deaths, noted the ages of the deceased, computed the average, and published the resulting numbers as estimates of gay life expectancy.

What do vital-statistics buffs think of this technique? Nick Eberstadt at the American Enterprise Institute sums up the reactions of several of his fellow demographers: "The method as you describe it is just ridiculous." But you don't have to be a trained statistician to spot the fallacy at its heart, which is, to quote Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistician John Karon, that "you're only getting the ages of those who die." Gay men of the same generation destined to live to old age, even if more numerous, won't turn up in the sample.

Other critics rattle off further objections. The deaths reported in these papers, mostly AIDS deaths, will tend to represent the community defined by such papers or directly known to their editors. It will include relatively more subjects who live in town and are overtly gay and relatively few who blend into the suburbs and seldom set foot in bars. It will overrepresent those whose passing strikes others as newsworthy and underrepresent those who end their days in retired obscurity in some sunny clime.

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26857.html

[Cap]

We voted in 2000, it was disputed, but the decision was upheld.  Many people don't like decision in 2008, with similar percentages to those with Prop 8, but they accepted it and aren't challenging it.  What makes Prop 8 or the other votes any different?  Why can a court overrule the will of the people in some cases but not others? 

[Straw Man]

We voted in 2000, it was disputed, but the decision was upheld.  Many people don't like decision in 2008, with similar percentages to those with Prop 8, but they accepted it and aren't challenging it.  What makes Prop 8 or the other votes any different?  Why can a court overrule the will of the people in some cases but not others? 

that's the whole reason we have courts.

If not, we'd just run our society by mob rule and vigilante justice and that would be called the "will of the people"

If it were left up to the will of the people we'd still have segregation

[Cap]

that's the whole reason we have courts.

If not, we'd just run our society by mob rule and vigilante justice and that would be called the "will of the people"

If it were left up to the will of the people we'd still have segregation

That's basically what we do now in elections, but I know what you are saying.  My point is that if all people want to do is define marriage, what's the big deal?  Gays basically have the same rights under California state law (or federal law? I forget which) with their civil unions, what rights are being denied?  If you have the same rights as married people but just not the title then it's more about forcing people to accept something they don't want than having equal protection.

Schools will be involved and people don't want their kids learning that shit.  Whether you like it or not, that's what people believe.  What's funny is that people are jumping all over Catholics and Mormons, what about all the Black Protestant denominations from the left side of the fences whose congregations don't like gay marriage either?  Read the LA Times op ed piece that was posted.  Apparently gay rights are not civil rights according to a gay black woman, so who cares?

Shit, I don't have equal rights/chances as a man when it comes to job applications these days but I don't file law suits about it.  I bitch quietly at home and post on Getbig! 

[timfogarty]

But, I guess you'll charge that this is a "hateful propganda site", too.

The study was about future trends during an epidemic.   Strange that the study ends in 1992, right when protease inhibitors came out.   In industrialized countries the death rate from AIDS plummeted with the introduction of these meds.   With rare exception, the only people dying of AIDS in the US these days are drug addicts, and that's because it's kind of hard to take yours meds at the right time every day when you're tweaking.  People with HIV and Hep-C are having a hard time, but again, the Hep-C is often due to IV drug use.

[timfogarty]

The notion of a minimum age of 14 for boys and 12 for girls comes from an 1854 case,

and what does and 1854 court case have to do with gay marriage?  you really want to compare laws in the past?  how about that even into the 1970s, age of consent for girls was 13 in many southern states.

[chaos]

that's the whole reason we have courts.

If not, we'd just run our society by mob rule and vigilante justice and that would be called the "will of the people"

If it were left up to the will of the people we'd still have segregation

I've never heard elections refered to as "mob rule" or "vigilante justice", LOL.
It's defiantely a mafority rule, and that's what we have here with Prop 8.

The people, the population of CA, in 2000 turned down the gay marraige deal, the gays whined and bitched and moaned until some judge was sick of hearing their shit and finally caved in under their pressure (much like a little kid pestering mommy for a piece of candy, "OK junior, just STFU already ), now, once again, the people have overturned it, the majority of voters said gay marraige is unacceptable here.

Maybe it's time for the gays to move to a state that has a population of voters that vote in those types of law.

[timfogarty]

Gays basically have the same rights under California state law (or federal law? I forget which) with their civil unions, what rights are being denied? 

California domestic partnership laws granted 90% of what the state offers, but does nothing regarding the private sector.   a company can offer something to married people, whether its benefits to employees or discounts or what ever, but not have to offer it to domestic partners.   but if everyone is married, then they cannot discriminate.

federal law does not offer any form of benefits to domestic partners.   social security inheritance rights would be nice.  immigration rights would be nice too.

Schools will be involved and people don't want their kids learning that shit. 

can't put the genie back in the bottle with that.  there are going to be gay couples in your neighborhood.  your child will have classmates with gay parents.  

the thing is I know so many kids of gay couples, and so may straight parents with gay friends.   I agree kids shouldn't be exposed to sexual behavior, gay or straight.  but kids see straights kiss all the time.  and the kids I know see gays kiss too, and it doesn't phase them in the least.

[timfogarty]

now, once again, the people have overturned it, the majority of voters said gay marraige is unacceptable here.

and if the ballot initiative process had existed in the 1950s and 1960s, whites would still not be allowed to marry non-whites, and we'd still have separate but equal schools.

Constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. 

[chaos]

and if the ballot initiative process had existed in the 1950s and 1960s, whites would still not be allowed to marry non-whites, and we'd still have separate but equal schools.

Constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. 

Time to move on, why not find a worthy cause, like a cure for cancer, or saving a redwood, now there's something everyone can appreciate.

[timfogarty]

Time to move on, why not find a worthy cause, like a cure for cancer, or saving a redwood, now there's something everyone can appreciate.

what's a little second class citizenship among friends?

[chaos]

what's a little second class citizenship among friends?

LOLOl, you're not being denied anything that will stop your quality of life.

[Straw Man]

I've never heard elections refered to as "mob rule" or "vigilante justice", LOL.
It's defiantely a mafority rule, and that's what we have here with Prop 8.

The people, the population of CA, in 2000 turned down the gay marraige deal, the gays whined and bitched and moaned until some judge was sick of hearing their shit and finally caved in under their pressure (much like a little kid pestering mommy for a piece of candy, "OK junior, just STFU already ), now, once again, the people have overturned it, the majority of voters said gay marraige is unacceptable here.

Maybe it's time for the gays to move to a state that has a population of voters that vote in those types of law.

we have elections to choose people to run our government and make the decisions that we're talking about.

As of now, the genius of the people have created an ammendment which directly contradicts the state constitution (as determined by the state supreme court). 

If we let the majority rule in these types of issues we'd probably still have slavery (I'm sure people in the south were pretty happy with that arrangement) much less segregation.

[drkaje]

we have elections to choose people to run our government and make the decisions that we're talking about.

As of now, the genius of the people have created an ammendment which directly contradicts the state constitution (as determined by the state supreme court). 

If we let the majority rule in these types of issues we'd probably still have slavery (I'm sure people in the south were pretty happy with that arrangement) much less segregation.

Gays aren't a separate race.

[CQ]

what's a little second class citizenship among friends?

For what it is worth Tim, I think it sucks.

I am more perturbed by whatever state [I forget] banning gays and singles from adopting.

Brilliant, 1/2 million kids need adopting, sitting around stuck in group homes with no one to love them, getting foster and adoptive parents is already hard as hell - so great choice to make it even harder.

[drkaje]

LOLOl, you're not being denied anything that will stop your quality of life.

Having been married I really can't disagree with you, LOL!