# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Has this become true yet?

## QDO1

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King

----------


## Judy Canty

I believe that we moved a great deal closer to realizing that sentiment.  We will achieve it when pundits and pollsters no longer feel compelled to break down voting trends by race, gender or age.

----------


## Spexvet

> "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
> Martin Luther King


 This has not yet become true.

----------


## Leo Hadley Jr

I think we are very close. We have made huge strides in the last 20 years. There will always be some pockets of hatred for something for whatever reason. But overall, I am very proud of where we have come and where we are headed.

----------


## Happylady

We are getting there, there have been huge strides in the past 40 or 50 years. I hope that somewhere in the future that the color of someone's skin will matter no more then the color of someone's eyes or hair.

The fact that everyone is making a huge deal out of Obama being black means that we aren't there yet. But we are getting closer. :)

----------


## obxeyeguy

> The fact that everyone is making a huge deal out of Obama being black means that we aren't there yet. But we are getting closer. :)


+1 to that

----------


## cocoisland58

As long as there are differences there ill be those who conciously or unconciously judge others because of them.  So that means there will never be a time when racism is truely abolished.  Part of it is human nature, part is fear, distrust of the unknown.  I know someone who distrusts all African americans and yet has never had an unfortunate experience nor ever even known a person of color personally.  Geeesh!  Yep, this election has provn that there are a majority of people in this country who do not see color when they look at a person or if they do it is not of any importance.  I did not vote democratic but I think this is going to be an interesting next for years.  One thing is certain, though racism will always exist, those that exist to pimp it all the time and throw that card down will have to reconsider their issues.  A big part of your "race war" is no longer valid.

----------


## drk

Really good to see QD01 back.

It's folly to even have that kind of dream, Martin.  

Of course we'll never achieve it.

----------


## Steve Machol

Nope. Sadly I saw this today on a bathroom wall in a Panda Express in Maricopa, AZ:

_f**k that n****r president!
_
And judging by some of the posts I've seen from other OptiBoarders (from whom I would have expected better), enduring prejudice based on the color of skin is unfortunately still a fact of life. 

However I believe what cocoisland58 said. Prejudice is inherent to the human condition and is very unlikely to disappear soon.

On the bright side though, I can say with much pride that although we in the U.S. get criticized by the rest of the world for our 'racism' there is no other major country in the world that is as diverse and accepting (overall) as the America. We have a unique history built on immigration (some voluntary and some not) that no other country can match which has not only brought racial prejudices to the forefront but has forced us to confront these issues in a way that no other country has. And let's be honest - only in the USA could a half-black/half-white man named Barack Hussein Obama be elected President. Whether we voted for him or not, this should be a source of pride for all of us. It happened here. It could not have happened anywhere else. Once again we lead by example.

----------


## FullCircle

Nope. there will always be those that judge. Whether it be because of the color of ones skin, their gender, length of their hair, or their age.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> Nope. there will always be those that judge. Whether it be because of the color of ones skin, their gender, length of their hair, or their age.



Or their name.

----------


## For-Life

Colour of the skin, maybe.

But keep in mind something.  The day that 65 million Americans voted in Obama as the first black US President, was the same date that three States voted in favour of removing rights for gay couples.  Those voters not only denied access to that right, but told every gay couple married under the law (including by churches) that their loving marriage is invalid.  Could you imagine that?  Telling someone that who they have committed the rest of their life to and love LEGALLY, that it is not valid?


Yesterday afternoon, "Guess Whose Coming for Dinner" was on tv.  One of the greatest films ever.  I remember one line that stood out.  It was when Sidney Portier's father told him that what he is planning on doing (marry a white girl) will be illegal in 16 or 17 States.

----------


## Leo Hadley Jr

I just looked up the word marriage. Even the dictionarys have ammended the meaning. Wikipedias meaning is currently under dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

----------


## gemstone

> Colour of the skin, maybe.
> 
> But keep in mind something. The day that 65 million Americans voted in Obama as the first black US President, was the same date that three States voted in favour of removing rights for gay couples. Those voters not only denied access to that right, but told every gay couple married under the law (including by churches) that their loving marriage is invalid. Could you imagine that? Telling someone that who they have committed the rest of their life to and love LEGALLY, that it is not valid?
> Yesterday afternoon, "Guess Whose Coming for Dinner" was on tv. One of the greatest films ever. I remember one line that stood out. It was when Sidney Portier's father told him that what he is planning on doing (marry a white girl) will be illegal in 16 or 17 States.


The homosexuals should invent another word to define homosexual  "marrage" and fight for that status to be treated like marrage in contracts.

----------


## Steve Machol

Or we could strip 'marriage' of having any legal context or meaning. That would be fair since what people really are trying to do is push their religious views on everyone else and that is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

----------


## LilKim

That would be the ideal to strive for.  "Marriage" can only be attained through the state, yet has such deep religious and social connotations attached to it that it blinds people into incorrectly viewing it in terms of their religion.  One day, the states and their laws will be truly secular, and people who think a union is only suited to a man and woman will no longer be able to keep others from enjoying the legal benefits granted by (what _should_ be at any rate) a totally secular state.

I voted "NO" on the amendment that was passed here in Florida, as "marriage" between a gay couple is not legally recognized here anyway.  But special interest groups fought to further strengthen this utterly redundant piece of legislation, so now it is legally defined our state constitution as being between one man and one woman.  I was rather disgusted at how many bigots make up the state, some 60% were in favor of adding the amendment.  As Florida can be very gay-friendly, I'm hoping that some time in the forseeable future, that law can get overturned.

----------


## Grubendol

if my daughter grows up to be gay, she should have EVERY right to get married.  The wave of discrimination against the last group it's ok to be openly bigoted against disgusts me.

----------


## For-Life

> The homosexuals should invent another word to define homosexual  "marrage" and fight for that status to be treated like marrage in contracts.


No, people should accept marriage.

Again, I bring up the point that traditionally, marriage was between two people of the same race.  It was even illegal in many States and probably countries for that to be broken.

Additionally, and here is the kicker, a right got taken away from its own citizens and churches (since these churches agreed to perform gay marriages, and the government can create rules where churches are free to make their own decision on that basis).

----------


## FullCircle

> The homosexuals should invent another word to define homosexual "marrage" and fight for that status to be treated like marrage in contracts.


 
Should I also have to come up with a word since my marriage didn't take place in a church? We aren't followers of organized religion so our wedding was done in a strip mall in Vegas.  Because if that's the case, then we'll have to change the name of the license.

----------


## FullCircle

many of those people in Calfornia that supported Prop 8 were blatantly lied to regarding what the prop was for.

Seems like a cheap win for the religious crowd.  At least those heathens were thruthful

----------


## Grubendol

lied and bought out...not to mention that voting Yes was for removing rights.  You know that confused at least a handful of voters and with a vote that close...

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

> Or we could strip 'marriage' of having any legal context or meaning. That would be fair since what people really are trying to do is push their religious views on everyone else and that is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.


Where is that section located?

Roy

----------


## Spexvet

> ...Additionally, and here is the kicker, a right got taken away from its own citizens and churches (since these churches agreed to perform gay marriages, and the government can create rules where churches are free to make their own decision on that basis).


 Don't you love those conservative Christian repubicans who voted for more big government to interfere in our personal lives? Let freedom ring!

----------


## Spexvet

> The homosexuals should invent another word to define homosexual "marrage" and fight for that status to be treated like marrage in contracts.


How do you define marriage? In the old testament, it was defined as a man and any number of women. Is that the tradition we should follow?

----------


## Steve Machol

> Where is that section located?
> 
> Roy


Are you serious? 

*1st Amendment:* _

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

_ We are a nation of Law, not a Theocracy. That is pretty clear, not only by a direct reading of the Constitution (can you say 'Strict Constructionist'?) but also by the writings of the founding father's as well as subsequent Supreme Court decisions.

Let's summarize:

1. The only objections to gay marriage are religious. (One could argue even that is dubious since Jesus himself had more to say about the evils of being rich than he said about homosexuality, but I'm not going to get into that. I suggest reading Bishop John Spong's books for a thorough study and understanding of what the Bible really does say about homosexuality.)

2. We are not a theocracy, we are a nation of laws - laws that are specifically designed to protect all citizens against the tyranny of the majority.

3. So if Marriage is a 'religious' institution, then the Government has no business being involved in it. Let the Churches have it. But it should not infer any legal status or rights.

* Bottom line:* If Marriage is a religious institution, then Government should not be involved. If it is not a religious institution, then religion should have no say in defining it.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

> Or we could strip 'marriage' of having any legal context or meaning. That would be fair since what people really are trying to do is push their religious views on everyone else and that is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.


The amendments are in place to limit *government* actions, not individual.  In part, the 1st Amendment forbids the establishment of a state religion.   You state what people really are trying to do is push their religious views on someone else and that is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.  Individuals are free to espouse any religious views they wish.  If you do not agree with those views you are free to voice your opposition, but those beliefs are not forbidden by the Constitution.  
Roy

----------


## Steve Machol

Yes, Government. That's my point as clearly stated in my post. I said absolutely nothing about people having the right to have their own religious views. :)

No one has the right to use the law to push their religious views on the rest of us . Do you disagree with that?

----------


## Grubendol

Mike...awesome, succinct explanation of why this just should not be argued the way it has been.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

> Yes, Government. That's my point as clearly stated in my post. I said absolutely nothing about people having the right to have their own religious views. :)
> 
> No one has the right to use the law to push their religious views on the rest of us . Do you disagree with that?


I reread the original post and can locate no reference to Government.  All the Amendments specifically limit the power of Government, but, individuals and groups are free to advocate for their positions, religious and otherwise.  If I disagree with those points of view, I am free to oppose any and all.  Opposition does not make me any better or worse than the other side, it is simply my right.  

Individuals and groups advancing religious views are not strictly forbidden by the Constitution.  It becomes problematic only when our Government attempts to impose religious standards.

To answer your question, I have consistently opposed anyone attempting to impose their moral standards on others.

Roy

----------


## Grubendol

you are free to advocate, but the government cannot advocate anything based on a religious perspective.  Because of the limitations on government.  Thus, since all arguments against gay marriage are based upon religion, government has no place in limiting gay marriage.


Also, on a side note it is illegal for churches, or officials of churches to advocate for candidates or measures since they are tax exempt.  Thus, the funding of the yes on 8 campaign was essentially illegal.  If churches want a political voice they need to lose their tax exempt status.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

[quote=Grubendol;271891]you are free to advocate, but the government cannot advocate anything based on a religious perspective. Because of the limitations on government. Thus, since all arguments against gay marriage are based upon religion, government has no place in limiting gay marriage.

I have no problem with the statement that government has no place in limiting gay marriage.  Since all arguments against gay marriage are based upon religion, is an all encompassing statement lacking supporting concrete evidence.  If you were to modify this to read many arguments, it might be more accurate.  In other words, I agree with your conclusion even if the argument is flawed.

----------


## Steve Machol

> I reread the original post and can locate no reference to “Government.”


Really? Here is my post again. Not only is the word 'Government' mentioned several times, but also several government institutions (Constitution, Congress, Supreme Court.)




> *1st Amendment:* _
> 
>  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> _ We are a nation of Law, not a Theocracy. That is pretty clear, not only by a direct reading of the *Constitution* (can you say 'Strict Constructionist'?) but also by the writings of the founding father's as well as subsequent *Supreme Court* decisions.
> 
> Let's summarize:
> 
> 1. The only objections to gay marriage are religious. (One could argue even that is dubious since Jesus himself had more to say about the evils of being rich than he said about homosexuality, but I'm not going to get into that. I suggest reading Bishop John Spong's books for a thorough study and understanding of what the Bible really does say about homosexuality.)
> ...






> All the Amendments specifically limit the power of Government, but, individuals and groups are free to advocate for their positions, religious and otherwise.  If I disagree with those points of view, I am free to oppose any and all.  Opposition does not make me any better or worse than the other side, it is simply my right.


 
I agree and never said otherwise. 

 


> Individuals and groups advancing religious views are not “strictly forbidden by the Constitution.”  It becomes problematic only when our Government attempts to impose religious standards.



Again I never made such a claim. Not sure why you keep insisting I did. :)

 


> To answer your question, I have consistently opposed anyone attempting to impose their moral standards on others.



Then I take this to mean you have no objection to Gay Marriage from a legal perspective.

----------


## Steve Machol

> I have no problem with the statement that “government has no place in limiting gay marriage.”  “Since all arguments against gay marriage are based upon religion,” is an all encompassing statement lacking supporting concrete evidence.  If you were to modify this to read “many arguments,” it might be more accurate.  In other words, I agree with your conclusion even if the argument is flawed.


I was basing this on my experience. I personally do not recall ever seeing or hearing any arguments against gay marriage that were not based on religious grounds. If such arguments exist, they are clearly over-shadowed by the religious arguments which clearly dominate any discussion of this topic.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

> Or we could strip 'marriage' of having any legal context or meaning. That would be fair since what people really are trying to do is push their religious views on everyone else and that is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.


Actually, this is your original post.

Roy

----------


## Steve Machol

The post I quoted was after that one and before your comment. However both the terms 'legal' and 'Constitution' are clearly government related.  Not sure why you are making such a big deal of of a trivial point though. It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. :)

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

_the initiative would amend the California Constitution to explicitly ban same-sex marriage. Because Constitutional amendments trump legislation and limit the authority of courts, the amendment would invalidate the California Supreme Courts May 2008 ruling that granted gay and lesbian couples the right to marry._

While I support the right of same sex couples to marry, this appears to be a fight between the non-elected judiciary and the citizens of California.  While Im uncomfortable with special interest groups pushing their agenda on the public, Im absolutely opposed to courts imposing non-legislated rulings.  Had the California legislature passed a law granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marry and the court had upheld the measure, Im not sure there would be a problem.

----------


## Grubendol

> _the initiative would amend the California Constitution to explicitly ban same-sex marriage. Because Constitutional amendments trump legislation and limit the authority of courts, the amendment would invalidate the California Supreme Courts May 2008 ruling that granted gay and lesbian couples the right to marry._
> 
> While I support the right of same sex couples to marry, this appears to be a fight between the non-elected judiciary and the citizens of California.  While Im uncomfortable with special interest groups pushing their agenda on the public, Im absolutely opposed to courts imposing non-legislated rulings.  Had the California legislature passed a law granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marry and the court had upheld the measure, Im not sure there would be a problem.



   First, judiciary is elected.

  Secondly, Amendments to the California Constitution require, per the Constitution, passage by both the Assembly and the Senate by 2/3 majority, and THEN passage by the population by the same.

  This went straight to the people bypassing the Consitutional requirements for amending the constitution.  Not to mention that it violates the Equal Protection Clause which amendments cannot legally do.  Its gonna get tossed out as unconstutitonal and this whole fight will be over nothingother than trying to ram 60s era culture war stuff down our throats as a way of dividing the left from the right.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

> First, judiciary is elected.
> 
> Secondly, Amendments to the California Constitution require, per the Constitution, passage by both the Assembly and the Senate by 2/3 majority, and THEN passage by the population by the same.
> 
> This went straight to the people bypassing the Consitutional requirements for amending the constitution. Not to mention that it violates the Equal Protection Clause which amendments cannot legally do. Its gonna get tossed out as unconstutitonal and this whole fight will be over nothingother than trying to ram 60s era culture war stuff down our throats as a way of dividing the left from the right.


If the judiciary is elected, does this mean the body can pass laws?  Im just curious.

Finally, if this vote is going to be tossed out for all these violations why everyone is upset?  Why not follow the California Constitution and have the bill passed by both the Assembly and the Senate by a 2/3 majority and then submit the measure to the population for a vote?

----------


## For-Life

> _…the initiative would amend the California Constitution to explicitly ban same-sex marriage. Because Constitutional amendments trump legislation and limit the authority of courts, the amendment would invalidate the California Supreme Court’s May 2008 ruling that granted gay and lesbian couples the right to marry._
> 
> While I support the right of same sex couples to marry, this appears to be a fight between the non-elected judiciary and the citizens of California.  While I’m uncomfortable with special interest groups pushing their agenda on the public, I’m absolutely opposed to courts imposing non-legislated rulings.  Had the California legislature passed a law granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marry and the court had upheld the measure, I’m not sure there would be a problem.


the judges did not (and cannot) create or change a law, they interpreted the constitution.

----------


## For-Life

> If the judiciary is elected, does this mean the body can pass laws?  Im just curious.
> 
> Finally, if this vote is going to be tossed out for all these violations why everyone is upset?  Why not follow the California Constitution and have the bill passed by both the Assembly and the Senate by a 2/3 majority and then submit the measure to the population for a vote?


My problem point is that a right was taken away from citizens.  I do not think anyone should strike down the constitutional change that the population voted for.  Instead, I was pointing out that on a day that one prejudice was overcome, another was promoted.

----------


## Steve Machol

There are two myths. One, that the Judicial branch has no say in interpreting the laws and Constiution of the US and the various states. That is clearly not the case and was settled in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.

Second, that when someone says they want a 'strict constructionist' judiciary what they are saying is that they do not believe the Judiciary should 'make law' or overturn some laws that are clear violations of other laws and rights guaranteed under the Constitution. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers established the Judiciary as the third branch of Government, *otherwise you would have a system in which a simple majority could at any time take away the rights of a minority.*

There are many cases in which the Supreme Court when well beyond a 'strict constructionst' view of the Constitution which brought cheers, and not jeers, from so-called conservatives. For instance I have never heard of anyone taking this stance who found fault with Gore v. Bush or the recent Supreme Court decision that completely eviscerated this section of the 2nd Amendment:

_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,_

----------


## Spexvet

> While I support the right of same sex couples to marry, this appears to be a fight between the non-elected judiciary and the citizens of California. While I’m uncomfortable with special interest groups pushing their agenda on the public, I’m absolutely opposed to courts imposing non-legislated rulings.


Courts don't impose anything. One of their functions is to ensure that laws that are passed by the legilative branch are allowed by the constitution.




> Had the California legislature passed a law granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marry and the court had upheld the measure, I’m not sure there would be a problem.



You can be sure that there would be a law suit from somewhere that would try to get the law struck down.

What would the reaction be if Chester, PA, which is about 18% white, passed a law that white people can't marry each other?

----------


## QDO1

I missed this place

----------

