Tag Archives: gay marriage

I LOVE ALEC BALDWIN

how awesome is this guy?

nataliebeth

Who Cares?

1. Don’t Care: Carrie Prejean

To begin with, cool name! But more importantly– who cares about this vapid woman? So she voiced her opinion about gay marriage. Many people think marriage is between a woman and a man. Many more important fucking people think so. She’s Miss California. That’s a made-up title that has no responsibility tied to it. So why do we care about this? It’s unclear. It is really great that she has received an undue amount of celebrity appeal for making a common ignorant statement, but I guess that’s how Ann Coulter got famous too. What I’m trying to say is this: she may be wrong, but let’s stop talking about it.

2. Care: Leon the Professional

Last night, I watched Leon the Professional, a Luc Besson film (of Fifth Element and La Femme Nikita fame). This is the story of a young girl (Natalie Portman) whose family is murdered. She is taken in by a hitman (Jean Reno), who, encouraged by her fervor for revenge, teaches her his trade. I really enjoyed the movie, which reminded me in some ways of The Fifth Element (Natalie Portman’s haircut, the wide angled shots at the beginning, the slow zooms, Gary Oldman), but at the end, the coherence began to taper. It was as if they were trying to tie the story up quickly and neatly at the very end–which didn’t make sense, since I thought the movie was over forty minutes early!

3. Care: PUPS

nataliebeth

Predictions For the Next 10 Years

I watch and read a lot of news, thinking about issues and where the world is headed and what not.  A new decade is fast approaching.  Hard to believe, but the 2010’s are less then 9 months away.  Anyway these are my thoughts for the next 10 years.

Abortion: Now I’m not necessarily for abortion, but I can’t see abortion becoming illegal in the United States.  Their  may be tougher restrictions in the future, but overall abortion will still be an available choice.

China: China is fast becoming a world power and major player on the world stage.  It will surpass the United States as the economic power. And the United States will no longer be the sole superpower politically. Instead it will be a “multi-polar” world where the U.S. Europe, Russia, China and to a lesser extent, other parts of the world will have an equal footing and say on the world stage. For culture such as movies, TV, popular  culture, and music America will still be the dominating force though not as much and other countries being a greater force worldwide.

Health care: The United States will have some form of universal health care in place by 2019. I just think it’s inevitable with Obama in office and the Democrats in power.

Past Torture Issues: Irrespective of whether the Bush Administration really crossed the line or not in respect to the handling of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay or those sent to “secret prisons”; Bush, Cheney and others  working for them will not be put on trial.  Obama has already said it will not happen.  Doing so will make Republicans even more against his policies and agenda in my opinion.

Gay Marriage: Gay marriage will become legal across the nation, probably on a deeply divided vote by the Supreme Court.

War on Terrorism: Surprisingly, I believe the war in Afghanistan will have not only ended by 2019, but in less then 5 years.  2  possible scenarios :The Taliban and the U.S. will come to some kind of truce or the Taliban will simply give up much like Al-Qaeda did in Iraq due to our drones bombing them and their leaders. Once the Taliban are gone Al-Qaeda will soon be destroyed – and Osama Bin Laden.

Just want to say that these are just my thoughts and even a few of my predictions I hope will not come true. Feel free to give your own opinions and thoughts.

2010movie_end Discokid

Iowa loves gays

sorry about this. hate to be one of those people who just posts a link to some other article, but… i wanted to share this and don’t have time to write a long opinion piece to go with it.

Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

feelings?

scott

related posts:

HELLO! Ann Coulter!

here are some videos that will give you a good feeling:

(taken from |LACONIC||ORATION|)

nataliebeth

related posts:

more about same-sex marriage

originally, this was a comment on natalie’s post about the california supreme court ruling that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. since then, i realized that a LOT of people either don’t understand what happened, or don’t really know what happened. most news articles i’ve seen don’t explain anything, and most people i know are too lazy to read the news. so i’m just going to re-work my comment so that it looks like a post instead of a response…

in california, a law becomes part of the statutes if it gets at least 51% of the popular vote, but should that be the case if the law obviously infringes on the state constitution? on may 15th, the california supreme court ruled, 4-3, that two pre-existing laws were unconstitutional and should never have even existed in the first place.

here’s what the judges looked at and struck down:

in 1977, the family code was enacted, which defined marriage as “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman”.

however… it also said:

“A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.”

OH NO! A LOOPHOLE!

so… one of the five men to fly an airplane in space, and the ONLY man to fly an airplane 4,520 miles per hour, old “pete” knight decided he’d stop up this hole in 2000 with his proposition 22. proposition 22 was litterally 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”. 61% of the people voted for it. (knight also had a gay son who had to have his marriage nullified because of this… )

what has happened between 2000 and today???

well… in 2004, the city and county of san francisco, as well as a bunch of other people, sued california to get rid of proposition 22. the san francisco superior court ruled it was unconstitutional to limit marriage to couples of the opposite sex. the state appealed.

then, in 2006, the first district court of appeal overturned the previous ruling, stating:

The marriage statutes do not discriminate based on gender; the state’s interests in “preserving the traditional definition of marriage” and “carrying out the expressed wishes of a majority of Californians” were sufficient to preserve the existing law.

then the supreme court took it up and blah blah blah.

while all this was going on, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, AB 849 was passed in 2005 by both the senate and state assembly, but was vetoed by schwarzenegger ONLY because prop 22 was now in the statutes. again, in 2006, the same thing happened. (AB 43) the governor ‘wrote in his veto statement that to solve the issue of gender-neutral marriage, the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT needed to finish its rule on the challenge which had been made to Proposition 22′.

basically, both the legislature AND the governor wanted to pass the same-sex marriage bill, but couldn’t until the courts came to a final decision on the 2004 lawsuits that claimed proposition 22 was unconstitutional.

so, where we are now is that the supreme court finally ruled, declaring both laws unconstitutional on equal protection grounds, meaning you can’t discriminate based on race, sex, or religion, and on the basis that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.

as for the judges, i don’t know if it’s fair to say that they were only acting on behalf of their morals. of course, for any human, it would be very hard to seperate your personal beliefs from the decision making process, and i’m sure religion, among other things, was a factor into how these judges voted. however, i feel that if you look at all of the info i’ve provided, it seems the judges most likely to be voting based more on ethics than the constitution would be the 3 who were against the ruling.

the only interests identified to justifying marriage only for heterosexual couples were “tradition” and “the will of the majority”. are these two things really more important than equal rights?

“as an historical matter in this state, marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman. tradition alone does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were sanctioned by the state for many years.” -Chief Justice George

and in related news:

scott

marriage, ellen degeneres, and john mccain

i forgot how much i LOVE ellen degeneres, and how much i DON’T love john mccain. how can you say to someone’s face that they don’t have the same rights as you? i’ve been studying the human rights act in the uk, and the diagnostic statistical manual of mental disorders, which until recently listed homosexuality as a mental disorder…it’s just mind-blowing to me why anyone cares about marriage to begin with, and why anyone cares about someone else’s marriage and whether it is legal or not.

also, please don’t vote for john mccain. anyone that doesn’t believe people are equal is one step away from supporting slavery and oppression.

in this video, ellen degeneres blatantly speaks, as john mccain rightly says, in a very eloquent fashion about how marriage should be a right for everyone. it is infuriating, though, that you can see john mccain just glossing over while she’s speaking.

nataliebeth