Prop 8

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Antny6

Originally posted by: MH2007
There was a suit filed before the California Supreme Court to remove the Prop from the ballot. What you are saying was actually one of the arguments that was used: that it was a a revision and not a mere amendment and therefore could not be put in place through an initiative.

The suit was dismissed.

Correct, it was dismissed without a ruling one way or the other. From what I understand the court rarely rules on a case like this until it actually becomes an issue.

And it looks like the writ has already been filed: Link

Well this will get interesting. I would have been surprised if prop 8 wasn't challenged in some way. The basic problem here is that the voters are asking for the California Constitution to be amended in a way that codifies discrimination and goes against the equal protection clause. How would that even be handled? How can you amend the constitution in a way that directly contradicts another part of the same constitution?

Probably head to court and be struck down on the basis that it is unconstitutional?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: zoiks
I voted for it.

Why? Also: Who should we not allow to marry next? Muslims or Jews?

the thing is, it isn't equivalent to race. homosexuality is a defect. a relatively benign one at that. unlike say pedophilia no one is getting raped. that being said, that doesn't make it the equivalent of skin color or race. never mind ideology

While there is no conclusive proof on the causes of homosexuality, all the available evidence points to a biological cause. That cause being a defect or a particular biological/evolutionary mechanism that has purpose is open to debate.

How our society at large has treated gays over history definitely gives it very strong parallels to discrimination based on race or color which are both ultimately a result of certain backward ideologies.

This isn't true...there is NO evidence at all of any linkage with homosexual behavior and any neurological condition (just as there's no neurological link to heterosexual behavior per se). The only people putting this out are "snake-oil salesmen" who say they have a "cure".

 

[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 in the government records and call them civil unions?

 

[nageov3t]

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.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equal civil rights, and I'm not religious, so I could care less about protecting the "sanctity" of marriage (which, BTW, I find extremely humorous considering the rate of divorce in this country), BUT... I never really understood why gay marriage is such a big thing among same-sex couples. Is marriage not, by definition, a spiritual union? And doesn't pretty much every major religion frown upon homosexuality? I guess I just don't see the appeal. If I was gay, I wouldn't be seeking approval from an institution that hates me.

I'm sure eventually, the major religions will come around and re-interpret the scripture to not exclude homosexuals from marriage, but until then, who cares?

It is both a spiritual and a legal union...
There are MANY rights that are granted to spouses that are not granted to significant others...

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: daniel49

people don't want the gay agenda shoved down thier throats. Its really as simple as that.

Which people? BIGOTS like you?

Nothing in Prop. 8 has anything to do with who YOU marry. What's being shoved down your BIGOTED throat?

Gays are allowed thier civil unions and should be content with that.

And there you have proven your own BIGOTRY. It's fucking BIGOTS like YOU who insist on shoving YOUR fucking BIGOTED agenda down the throats of gay couples. :thumbsdown: :|

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that "separate but equal" is NOT equal, yet you think gays should be satisfied with exactly that, a "separate but equal" distinction. If you're so convinced that "civil union" is fully equal to civil marriage, then all you're arguing about is a name... a freaking WORD, a semantic distinction that has no significance in law. I guess that would make you anti-semantic. :roll:

Have you ever seen the Southpark episode when they use the word "shit" 200 times to prove how fast the shock wears off?

Well "bigot" is now losing its luster.

 

[Toasthead]

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?

move to Massachusetts.

 

[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.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: Antny6

Originally posted by: MH2007
There was a suit filed before the California Supreme Court to remove the Prop from the ballot. What you are saying was actually one of the arguments that was used: that it was a a revision and not a mere amendment and therefore could not be put in place through an initiative.

The suit was dismissed.

Correct, it was dismissed without a ruling one way or the other. From what I understand the court rarely rules on a case like this until it actually becomes an issue.

And it looks like the writ has already been filed: Link

Here's a copy of it in PDF format, for those interested Link

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Have you ever seen the Southpark episode when they use the word "shit" 200 times to prove how fast the shock wears off?

Well "bigot" is now losing its luster.

And so what? Nobody would be called a "bigot" if they didn't act like one.

 

[pstylesss]

So... majority rule no longer counts, huh? It's obvious this is something the people of CA do not want as it has been banned 1, overturned by the courts, and then banned again. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't make this country to have laws made by the courts, only upheld. The people have re-written the law, the court must follow it.

 

[piasabird]

Who gave these people in california the right of what they refer to as "Gay Marriage"?

The people have spoken.

They only way they can override the voice of the people is to get some judge in California to override it. Then it has to go to the Supreme Court. So bring it on???

Just take one up the pooper and get over it!

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
So... majority rule no longer counts, huh? It's obvious this is something the people of CA do not want as it has been banned 1, overturned by the courts, and then banned again. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't make this country to have laws made by the courts, only upheld. The people have re-written the law, the court must follow it.

I suppose you see witch burning as ok during that century since the majority agreed to it?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
So... majority rule no longer counts, huh? It's obvious this is something the people of CA do not want as it has been banned 1, overturned by the courts, and then banned again. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't make this country to have laws made by the courts, only upheld. The people have re-written the law, the court must follow it.

The founding fathers made sure the majority couldn't control the minority through the electoral college... Besides, with your reasoning, slavery would still be in place and women wouldn't be able to vote..

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
So... majority rule no longer counts, huh? It's obvious this is something the people of CA do not want as it has been banned 1, overturned by the courts, and then banned again. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't make this country to have laws made by the courts, only upheld. The people have re-written the law, the court must follow it.

The judicial branch is charged with interpreting laws, not enforcing them. They don't answer to the people and they don't care about majority rule.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
So... majority rule no longer counts, huh? It's obvious this is something the people of CA do not want as it has been banned 1, overturned by the courts, and then banned again. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't make this country to have laws made by the courts, only upheld. The people have re-written the law, the court must follow it.

The minority must be protected. This is not a European-style democracy where the minority are terrorized by the majority.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: sportage
Voters get to chose????
What?s next, "should slavery be ok" amendments?
"Should women be banned from voting" amendments?
Should mixed marriages be banned, amendments?
This is an civil rights issue.
The "straight" public should have NO SAY in the issue.
Pure legalized bigotry.

Yeah, Heil Sportage!!!

It's not like America is some kind of democracy :roll:

Typical. The democrats won almost everything under the sun they act as if it's the end of the world. FYI VOTERS decide how to run this DEMOCRACY/REPUBILC. Furthermore, they call everyone that doesn't agree with them 100% of the time fascists.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken, but if sportage was serious then he needs to read up on the difference between a democracy and a fascist state.

 

[pstylesss]

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.

 

[Antny6]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Antny6

Originally posted by: MH2007
There was a suit filed before the California Supreme Court to remove the Prop from the ballot. What you are saying was actually one of the arguments that was used: that it was a a revision and not a mere amendment and therefore could not be put in place through an initiative.

The suit was dismissed.

Correct, it was dismissed without a ruling one way or the other. From what I understand the court rarely rules on a case like this until it actually becomes an issue.

And it looks like the writ has already been filed: Link

Well this will get interesting. I would have been surprised if prop 8 wasn't challenged in some way. The basic problem here is that the voters are asking for the California Constitution to be amended in a way that codifies discrimination and goes against the equal protection clause. How would that even be handled? How can you amend the constitution in a way that directly contradicts another part of the same constitution?

As mentioned above, a revision to the constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the legislature to approve the proposal which is then submitted to the people to vote (Article 18). The people can only amend the constitution via initiative.

If the court does strike it down, it won't be because the content of proposition is unconstitutional, but because the method in which it received approval is unconstitutional.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
So... majority rule no longer counts, huh? It's obvious this is something the people of CA do not want as it has been banned 1, overturned by the courts, and then banned again. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't make this country to have laws made by the courts, only upheld. The people have re-written the law, the court must follow it.

I'm not sure if you haven't gotten the memo, but there are many many times that majority rule doesn't count in America when it comes to constitutional rights. The legal argument that the plaintiffs are bringing up seems like it has a shot at working, but I don't know enough about it to really say.

Either way, prop 8 is a black mark on the history of California. Some day in the not too distant future I imagine it will be repealed, but it will still embarrass the state for some time to come. At least I can say I voted against it.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Have you ever seen the Southpark episode when they use the word "shit" 200 times to prove how fast the shock wears off?

Well "bigot" is now losing its luster.

Then the BIGOTS who supported Prop. 8 won't have as much trouble sleeping as they should. The rest of us will still know what they are... BIGOTS!

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equal civil rights, and I'm not religious, so I could care less about protecting the "sanctity" of marriage (which, BTW, I find extremely humorous considering the rate of divorce in this country), BUT... I never really understood why gay marriage is such a big thing among same-sex couples. Is marriage not, by definition, a spiritual union? And doesn't pretty much every major religion frown upon homosexuality? I guess I just don't see the appeal. If I was gay, I wouldn't be seeking approval from an institution that hates me.

I'm sure eventually, the major religions will come around and re-interpret the scripture to not exclude homosexuals from marriage, but until then, who cares?

It is both a spiritual and a legal union...
There are MANY rights that are granted to spouses that are not granted to significant others...

But I guess I'm just asking, if same-sex couples were given completely equal rights with civil unions, would most be fine with that, or do they really care that much about getting to call it "marriage"? Maybe it's just my bias against organized religion showing, but I just don't understand why it matters. Spiritually, that's something that can be handled between themselves and god IMO. Whether the catholic church and their interpretation of god approves wouldn't make a difference to me.

 

[OCGuy]

No wonder Californians feel like we are the center of the universe.

We live in the country that most outside countries follow and know everything about.

Inside that, we live in a state that people in other states follow closely (there are SEVERAL states with marriage bans, but this one gets the attention)

And inside CA, my county has had many shows based off of it.


Logical conclusion? We are gawd.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equal civil rights, and I'm not religious, so I could care less about protecting the "sanctity" of marriage (which, BTW, I find extremely humorous considering the rate of divorce in this country), BUT... I never really understood why gay marriage is such a big thing among same-sex couples. Is marriage not, by definition, a spiritual union? And doesn't pretty much every major religion frown upon homosexuality? I guess I just don't see the appeal. If I was gay, I wouldn't be seeking approval from an institution that hates me.

I'm sure eventually, the major religions will come around and re-interpret the scripture to not exclude homosexuals from marriage, but until then, who cares?

It is both a spiritual and a legal union...
There are MANY rights that are granted to spouses that are not granted to significant others...

But I guess I'm just asking, if same-sex couples were given completely equal rights with civil unions, would most be fine with that, or do they really care that much about getting to call it "marriage"? Maybe it's just my bias against organized religion showing, but I just don't understand why it matters. Spiritually, that's something that can be handled between themselves and god IMO. Whether the catholic church and their interpretation of god approves wouldn't make a difference to me.

Yeah, I have the same question. Furthermore, people of all different religions (including non-religious people) get married, and people don't seem to have a problem with that. Do evangelicals hate it when atheists get married by a justice of the peace because they're bringing their secularism to what they feel is a sacred religious institution? What about Jews or Muslims?