Prop 8

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

"To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are." - Bill Rehnquist

That doesn't mean it's a good thing. Of course in the long run, I suspect the people of California will be saying something very different.

 

[dmcowen674]

A discriminatory Ban on any person should never make it for a vote to begin with.

That is what any court that truly upholds the Constitution of the United States should find.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But regardless of what a small majority of Californians think, this kind of thing isn't supposed to be what America is about.

According to who? You?

That's right. This isn't a debate about gay marriage, it's a debate about whether or not the government is your personal tool for making society believe the same things you believe. The idea that we should be able to live by our own beliefs, regardless of how our fellow citizens feel, is implicit in our founding documents. Freedom of speech and religion were spelled out specifically because there were the most important personal choice issues at the time, but it seems pretty clear what the general idea was.

 

[Antny6]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

We may have lost this time, but we'll never give up until we get equal rights for everybody.

Good luck with that. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 is enshrined in the Constitution itself and is the law of the land.

Unless you actually want judges overruling their Constitution. In which case, please don't cry about W doing so....

Except for the small fact that Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative. If it's determined that the addition to the constitution proposed in the proposition actually does contradict another portion of the constitution (which you maintain is the purpose of an amendment), then the addition is a revision to the current constitution and requires approval of 2/3 of the legislature before being placed on the ballot.

The drafters of the state constitution were smart enough not to leave everything up to a simple majority of the general populace.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

Lost for the moment. Prop 8 was pretty close, closer than it would have been even a few years ago. It will be reversed a few years down the road, and bigots like you will join the bigots of previous generations in looking like a bunch of assholes in the history books. If anyone should be giving it up, it's you...it seems pretty clear the direction things are going in on this issue.

I dont think it is that simple. At least not any time soon. The states that vote on it, pass it. Even the most liberal in the union. Obama doesnt seem to care enough to take it federal. In fact, gay is a HUGE taboo in the AA community, as my fellow Californians proved.

The vote on prop 8 was pretty close, and survey and survey shows that young people (even most young conservatives) don't care about gay marriage. Things change, almost always in a more progressive direction. You really think the vote would have been this close even 10 years ago? "Any time soon" will probably be sooner than you think, if only because today's conservative is usually yesterday's liberal.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I for one never understood why if a proposition has no effect on your daily life why instead of voting for the proposition you just don`t vote on that particular issue.....
Why can`t the church stay out of other peoples lives?
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars....

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel49
people don't want the black agenda shoved down thier throats. Its really as simple as that. Blacks are allowed some civil rights and should be content with that.

There. How does that sound to you? About right? That would be you about 50 years ago.

how do you spin so much without getting dizzy?....oh never mind just answered my own question.
You re dizzy.

How is it in any way different?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

We may have lost this time, but we'll never give up until we get equal rights for everybody.

Good luck with that. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 is enshrined in the Constitution itself and is the law of the land.

Unless you actually want judges overruling their Constitution. In which case, please don't cry about W doing so....

Is this for real? I think people on the internet just like attention.

They will just call it something else with the same rights.. everyone wins.. except for people like you...

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
I for one never understood why if a proposition has no effect on your daily life why instead of voting for the proposition you just don`t vote on that particular issue.....
Why can`t the church stay out of other peoples lives?
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars....

That argument can be flipped. Why do the gays have to force their beliefs on others. It can go both ways, even if you are on the other side.

 

[Ns1]

Like I said, it's only a matter of time. It could be decades but it is certain that gays will eventually get equal rights, even if it takes them a long time. They are fighting a civil rights battle like so many groups before them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

Lost for the moment. Prop 8 was pretty close, closer than it would have been even a few years ago. It will be reversed a few years down the road, and bigots like you will join the bigots of previous generations in looking like a bunch of assholes in the history books. If anyone should be giving it up, it's you...it seems pretty clear the direction things are going in on this issue.

Calling people bigots and assholes isn't a good way to gain support for any future changes. You only make people more entrenched in their opinions and think there really is a war, instead of convincing them there is a problem with their way of thought and promoting change.

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
We may have lost this time, but we'll never give up until we get equal rights for everybody.

This is a much better way.

You have a point, but that doesn't mean this doesn't piss me off. Plotting strategy is much different than expressing an opinion.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
I for one never understood why if a proposition has no effect on your daily life why instead of voting for the proposition you just don`t vote on that particular issue.....
Why can`t the church stay out of other peoples lives?
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars....

That argument can be flipped. Why do the gays have to force their beliefs on others. It can go both ways, even if you are on the other side.

Link to article where gays force people to be gay.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
I for one never understood why if a proposition has no effect on your daily life why instead of voting for the proposition you just don`t vote on that particular issue.....
Why can`t the church stay out of other peoples lives?
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars....

That argument can be flipped. Why do the gays have to force their beliefs on others. It can go both ways, even if you are on the other side.

Link to article where gays force people to be gay.

!

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
the gays

Can I move that the words 'the' and 'gay' be banned from being within 7 words of each other?

Or at least make people say 'teh gheyz'?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
I for one never understood why if a proposition has no effect on your daily life why instead of voting for the proposition you just don`t vote on that particular issue.....
Why can`t the church stay out of other peoples lives?
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars....

That argument can be flipped. Why do the gays have to force their beliefs on others. It can go both ways, even if you are on the other side.

No it can't. If gay marriage is legal, nobody is forcing YOU to have one.

There is a difference between forcing other people to accept that you have the right to your beliefs, and forcing other people to LIVE by your beliefs.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: loki8481

Is marriage not, by definition, a spiritual union?

it is not. marriage in our culture is a civil contract, and for same-sex couples, it's a focal point amid the things that go along with it, like insurance, adoption, partners being able to visit each other in the hospital, pass down property after their death without needing a will, etc.

So then it is just semantics? Like I said before, I'm all for equal civil rights. Then why don't we just call them civil unions, give them the same rights as "marriage," and be done with it? Or just abolish any references to marriage on the government and call them all civil unions and the same rights?

because it smacks of separate but equal.

I think what he means to ask is: "why not change the term 'marriage' to 'civil union' and apply it to everyone?"

...in that case I do think it pretty much boils down to semantics.

Exactly. Sorry, my post was worded kind of weird.

Well if that's what you meant, that would work just fine. But many straight people would go completely apeshit if the government tried to take marriage away from them too.

Ultimately it's about the message being sent. Allowing some people to "marry" while not allowing others sends the message that those other people don't love each other the same way the married folks do. Legal rights are important, but really a secondary issue. The big problem with banning gay marriage, IMHO, is that it's also about saying that gay people aren't as good as straight people. The "separate but equal" references are exactly right. The problem with separate but equal wasn't that the facilities for black people WEREN'T equal, it was that they were different at all.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

The people of CA want it kept traditional. They are not killing or hurting anyone, they are granting them the same rights as they have in marriage without the name. Point is, the people of CA have spoken twice. It's time the judiciary branch stop working out of class.

Whose traditions are you talking about? Not religious, because some religions do allow gay marriage. Not Californian, because California's tradition for the past few months has been to allow gay marriage. Not American, because some states do allow gay marriage.


California has amended its Constitution to deny equal rights to a group of people. That is a disgrace.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
I for one never understood why if a proposition has no effect on your daily life why instead of voting for the proposition you just don`t vote on that particular issue.....
Why can`t the church stay out of other peoples lives?
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars....

That argument can be flipped. Why do the gays have to force their beliefs on others. It can go both ways, even if you are on the other side.

I have never seen a gay person ever forcing there beliefs on others......
In fact most gayes go about there buisness and unlike so called CHristians do NOT go out a recruit or proselytize others to become gay....

You are sadly mis-informed!!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

The people of CA want it kept traditional. They are not killing or hurting anyone, they are granting them the same rights as they have in marriage without the name. Point is, the people of CA have spoken twice. It's time the judiciary branch stop working out of class.

Whose traditions are you talking about? Not religious, because some religions do allow gay marriage. Not Californian, because California's tradition for the past few months has been to allow gay marriage. Not American, because some states do allow gay marriage.


California has amended its Constitution to deny equal rights to a group of people. That is a disgrace.

exactly!! This issue has nothing to do with the church at all!! yet it has everything to do with denying equal rights to a group of people!!

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Whose traditions are you talking about? Not religious, because some religions do allow gay marriage. Not Californian, because California's tradition for the past few months has been to allow gay marriage. Not American, because some states do allow gay marriage.

Considering most Californians and Americans who have a religion worship a Judeo-Christian god, I'd say there's a pretty strong tradition anti-homosexuality through religion.

California has been a state since 9/9/1850. That's slightly more than 158 years. Gay marriage in CA had been legal for a few months. So <1 year is more "tradition" than 158 years?

United States- a country since 1776. Gay marriage in Massachusets- Nov 18, 2003. Again, you're contention is that 3>232?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

There is your problem in bold.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

The people of CA want it kept traditional. They are not killing or hurting anyone, they are granting them the same rights as they have in marriage without the name. Point is, the people of CA have spoken twice. It's time the judiciary branch stop working out of class.

It doesn't matter how may times the people of CA speak on an issue of a Constitutional right. The court was right when they said it violated the CA constitution, and it still violates the federal one. I imagine sometime in the not so distant future the federal courts will blow this out of the water much in the same way as they did bans on interracial marriage.

Either way, you're still trying to make the 'separate but equal' argument. I suggest you go back and read Brown v. Board for the USSC's take on that kind of reasoning.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

The people of CA want it kept traditional. They are not killing or hurting anyone, they are granting them the same rights as they have in marriage without the name. Point is, the people of CA have spoken twice. It's time the judiciary branch stop working out of class.

Did you even pay attention to how shamefully the Prop 8 campaign was conducted? It was disgusting. The Mormon Church shoveled the BS so high that I'm sure most voters had no idea what was going on. Plus, the Prop is illegal under both the California and US Constitution.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Question in the summary:

If gays can't get married - well, what should they do now? Feel "lucky" that they got the civil union bone tossed to them and be happy with it?

i want government to get out of this 'marriage business' and just issue 'civil union' paper for all. let any church decide if they want to use the 'marriage' label...

also, according to some link i read today, 70% of black voters voted to ban gay marriage.

 

[Corbett]

IS anyone really surprised? This is what they did 4 years ago when they lost too. Of course, between then and now they tried to tell us that the majority of people in California had changed their minds on the issue and that is why it should be reversed. Well, we now know they were wrong about that.