Miss California | Page 8 | Golden Skate

Miss California

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Personally I don't think this world is better or worse... all of the same themes just keep repeating (the good and the bad)... going with my Christian-ese - we live in a "fallen world"... and humans have always been and always will be a selfish lot.

Yes, there are exceptions, but I thinking pointing the fingers at others goes no where.

Would I want to live in a time where I couldn't have my say? No. I'm all for having the right to vote, and the right to make money....however as a woman living in a modern time I get really tired of being told that my stand on abstinence, what my plans are for when/if I get married and have children, and my faith are wrong and hurting the women's cause. I have a coworker that considers me stupid and childish and tells EVERYONE in the office of my unintelligence.

Now, you all might also think me stupid, but it seems a little wrong that people screaming for women's rights to be free thinking and do as they please are telling me as a woman what to do and say and think. I am not pushing my view on this coworker. She ASKED. There is a difference. You ASK then I'm not pushing it on you, I'm ANSWERING your question. Belittling me after getting the answer is YOU pushing your views on ME.

Do I think the world would be better if everyone followed the Christian set of values - naturally yes. And yes I vote based on my faith just as every other person votes based on their set of beliefs. I'm not pushing my view that way anymore than anyone else is pushing theirs onto me.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Toni, I personally don't mind coworkers explaining their believes to me - as long as they respect certain lines. For example, I used to work with this very observant* Christian kid David. I was fascinated with his world view and encouraged him to express it freely. However, when at one point he started trying to convince me that Christianity was so much better than Judaism - I felt uncomfortable with it. I told him that (gently); since he understood where I was coming from, he never raised that particular issue openly again, and we were able to continue our religious discussions to, I hope, mutual benefit. Had he persisted with his missionary position though, I'd have had to cut it off entirely.

* My rabbi's influence - he doesn't like us to say "religious" about people because you never know what's in their hearts; he prefers us to use the term "observant" - so it has now become a second nature to me.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
I got a taste of Shintoism when I was touring in Japan, and was surprised that they are, like Native Americans, firm believers in the whole of Nature and not just the humans, and the God who cares just about humans.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Toni, I personally don't mind coworkers explaining their believes to me - as long as they respect certain lines. For example, I used to work with this very observant* Christian kid David. I was fascinated with his world view and encouraged him to express it freely. However, when at one point he started trying to convince me that Christianity was so much better than Judaism - I felt uncomfortable with it. I told him that (gently); since he understood where I was coming from, he never raised that particular issue openly again, and we were able to continue our religious discussions to, I hope, mutual benefit. Had he persisted with his missionary position though, I'd have had to cut it off entirely.

* My rabbi's influence - he doesn't like us to say "religious" about people because you never know what's in their hearts; he prefers us to use the term "observant" - so it has now become a second nature to me.


I hate the term religious, though I use it because I can't think of a better term when explaining/describing things - however I like observant

and I don't preach at work. The issue that's been going on at work is based on the fact that I used to wear what I call a 'promise ring' but can also be called a 'chastity ring'. It's just an outward symbol saying I am waiting until marriage. My coworker was looking online for what she wants her "engagement" ring to be (on company time, which is a huge no-no... but she cares diddly about the job. don't get me started lol) and it reminded me that I needed to have my "promise ring" resized and asked her where I would go to have that done that was affordable in town. She wanted to know about the ring (because "promise" could also mean engagement) and so I told her that it was a "chastity ring" I never once brought up any "religious" belief before she lit into how that was outdated and horrible and blah blah blah. That I was setting womankind back 60 years or something like that.

Didn't know a single piece of jewelry could do that (and really an engagement/wedding band on a woman's hand could mean the same thing. it's an outward sign that you belong to someone else. *gasp!* see, I can make generalizations too!) ;)
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004

I find it extremely sad that you are bored by the plight of women through the years. Perhaps you should use more of your Christian ideals and you might actually achieve some level of enlightenment?

What worked was when kids had a mother and a father. Never said it was perfect. So instead of working on perfecting it, you choose to demonize the past, and ignore the failings of the present. I see the human race fundamentally as a bunch of children. The noble ideals of Christianity like self-sacrifice, humility and believing in something more important than just your own immediate happiness -- those are the values which used to be instilled in said children. Now we're just spoiled and worthless, we don't understand why "me me me" won't work, we think everyone deserves everything even when it is incongruous. Our society is completely selfish, and the courts have granted women the power to abuse that selfishness and destroy families. Yep, your modern values are so freaking noble. I'm just in awe.

No all you made was a sweeping statement with nothing at all to back it up, you said:

Actually, "traditional marriage" isn't just what yet another arrogant athiest on youtube claims in a bitter one-sided rant about the bible. It IS what has worked for society for thousands of years.

I was merely pointing out that it depends on what you mean by "worked". Clearly it didn't work for many people.

I haven't demonised anything i'm merely stating facts about what people have gone through. Burying your head in the sand and demonizing (to use your own words) the world right now saying everythign shoudl go back to how it was is going to get us absoltuely nowhere.

Identifying issues and practical workable solutions is the only way things are going to get better. As i said before jaded misogyny will get us nowhere fast.

Ant
 

Particle Man

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
I have a coworker that considers me stupid and childish and tells EVERYONE in the office of my unintelligence.

Now, you all might also think me stupid, but it seems a little wrong that people screaming for women's rights to be free thinking and do as they please are telling me as a woman what to do and say and think. I am not pushing my view on this coworker. She ASKED. There is a difference. You ASK then I'm not pushing it on you, I'm ANSWERING your question. Belittling me after getting the answer is YOU pushing your views on ME.

Bingo. The liberal society is gonna "encourage" you to live every aspect of their predetermined "free and empowered" lifestyle, and if you don't subscribe to all of it, watch out! You only have "free speech" as long as it is speech sanctioned and supported by the liberal media gestapo.

There are many aspects of humanity to blame for this -- in this case, conformity? It reminds me of the constant abuse I get from my male acquaintances because I don't drink, don't seek out cheap sex, don't act like a pig. There's something "wrong" with me because I don't conform to their (low) standards and engage in those activities. :sheesh:

... I really need better friends. :laugh:
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
your last point is actually the one I agree with... ie you need better friends...

the guys that I grew up and hang out with don't look at life that way. and I don't believe they're the only ones on teh planet like that. maybe if you befriend those with 'higher moral standards' you'd realize the world isn't out to get you.
 

CzarinaAnya

Medalist
Joined
Aug 29, 2003
I find it extremely sad that you are bored by the plight of women through the years. Perhaps you should use more of your Christian ideals and you might actually achieve some level of enlightenment?



Condescension much?
 
Last edited:

icedancingnut31

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
I really don't think there should have been such a stir over her comments and views on same sex marriage. I personally think that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want even if others don't agree with them. It is free speech. If she doesn't believe in same sex marriage that is her decision and it is not everybody else's place to get angry about it. People are allowed to have their own opinions
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
There is nothing wrong with not believeing in same-sex marriage. That is an opinion and it is based on your religion and not on the constitution that all people are created equal In effect, Miss California is saying the constitution is wrong.

The best way for the gay haters to address this is to have the constitution amended to say most people are equal.

For Miss California I would suggest she learn some new christan music to sing on saleable recordings, and stay clear of show biz work for obvious reasons.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
is she, because the idea of "created" means there is a creator. judging by the main religion of the founders of this nation that Creator is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their religion (be it Jewish, Muslim, or Christian) all are very firm on this subject...

and isn't "We the people...etc" from the Declaration of Independence?
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Toni :laugh:

We'll argue to death on the Creation Theory. It seems to me the Founders of the Constitution were explicit in saying all people are created equal and had inalienable rights. To me, that is saying that to accept a being of alien origin from one section of the world wide sheme of things is not only questionable but out of order. The constitution was getting away from all religions that would interfere with equal rights.

White Christians, Black Christians, Muslims Jews, and other Relgious Sects are all included in the created equal rights to leave out the Gay people is an afront to that law of the land. That is a hateful situation. To believe a group of people are not equal to others is against the Constitution.

I feel you want to bring up the Law of God - your God - and not anyone else's as more important on equal rights than the Constiitution.
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
Yes, the founders said that...but they said it in the the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e027.htm

IMO, the most important Constitutional issue about marriage hinges on the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, not the declaration:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unless you believe that gay people are not people or not citizens, then by the 14th amendment, they are entitled to equal protection of the law. Therefore, as I see it, either the government has to remove marriage as part of its laws, (if the government feels marriage can't be equally applied to gay people), or it has to give gay people the equal protection of the marriage laws.

The US gives a large portion of legal advantages to married heterosexual couples that it does not give to married gay couples. (A number of churches, including the Unitarian Church and the United Church of Christ perform gay marriages, as do the states of CT, MS, VT, and IA, so yes there are a lot of legally married gay couples in those 4 states, and a lot of people married in church throughout the country.) These advantages include significant monetary benefits in such things as the Earned Income Tax Credit and other federal tax advantages, as well as visitation in hospitals. At this time, there are over 1,000 rights the US preferentially gives to straight couples that it does not give to gay couples. States have some 400:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

It does not matter what Miss California does and does not believe in, nor what people 2500 years ago believed in. What matters is what the Constitution says, and how the 9 justices of the Supreme Court interpret it. If the justices interpret that gay people are people and that gay people are citizens, then for equal protection to apply, they will be allowed to be married. In VT and IA, gay marriage became OK'd by the states exactly because those states have equal protection clauses in their state Constitutions, and the state courts upheld that right.

If the Supreme Court does not decide that gay people are people and citizens, I wouldn't be surprised if all 1000 and some odd advantages for married people to be challenged in court, seeking for them to be invalidated, that's if the SCOTUS doesn't invalidate all of them as part of its ruling, in an attempt to have both the Equal Protection clause and discrimination against gays at the same time.
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
BTW, a case was decided by the court, Loving vs. the State of Virginia in 1963 that many people find very similar:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

The Lovings were a biracial couple that were legally married in the District of Columbia but were arrested in Virginia for being married.

Some of the court's decision:

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years.

The Lovings moved to DC and appealed the conviction all the way to the Supreme Court, which struck down the state of Virginia law on the basis that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Virginia had made laws based on their interpretation of the Bible that God had put the races on different continents and did not intend them to marry. It was also a common notion that African Americans were doomed to be inferior to whites because they were the descendants of Noah's son Ham & his son Canaan, and Noah had cursed Canaan:

http://www.gotquestions.org/curse-Ham-Canaan.html

So Biblical objections to another state's laws on marriage have not been particularly telling to the court. Virginia argued that the law did not discriminate against the races since both blacks and whites who intermarried were punished equally. The court did not buy that explanation at all. No similar lame, but at least plausible, grounds to say that Equal Protection isn't violated really exists for gay marriage.

Here's more of the court's decision :

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

So given that some states honor gay marriages, it's entirely possible that the court will cite Loving vs. Virginia in any decision on gay marriage (either to say how it is the same or different).

However, I think it is clear that even Conservatives feel they are on Constitutional thin ice on this issue. Conservatives in Alaska who wanted to deny benefits to gay partners of state employees attempted to amend the state Constitution to do it. Alaska has an Equal Protection clause.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=5843150

Likewise, banning gay marriage in CA (previous legal) required amending the State Constitution. However, it is very easy to amend CA's constitution.

Basically, now that homosexual relationships are legal in almost all states, gays can no longer be discriminated against as part of the class 'felons' (a class that along with children has had less rights and had that lack of rights upheld by the SCOTUS), I can't see how the Equal Protection clause would not apply to gay marriage. It would take amending the Constitution to make that not so.

Amending the US Constitution is a far more difficult task than amending CA's, however.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Doris, this is a good argument. However, let's take it a step further. Jennifer and Jessica get married, and receive all the "legal advantages" that go along with it. Sarah and Sandie have a platonic relationship; they do not have sex, but live together, share expenses, and plan to probably live together forever. Why can't they get the same "legal advantages" as J&J (assuming they do not want to lie)?
 

Medusa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Doris, this is a good argument. However, let's take it a step further. Jennifer and Jessica get married, and receive all the "legal advantages" that go along with it. Sarah and Sandie have a platonic relationship; they do not have sex, but live together, share expenses, and plan to probably live together forever. Why can't they get the same "legal advantages" as J&J (assuming they do not want to lie)?
Huh? Do you have to prove that you are having sex in order to get a marriage licence? Of course Sarah and Sandie can also get married.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Medusa, I believe that while it is not the law, it is sort of "understood". However, since I cannot find anything to substantiate, let's take it one step further. Let's say that S&S are sisters. They, indeed cannot marry - anywhere in the world I believe. Why not? Why should they be "denied" those same "legal privileges"?
 
Top