Prop 8

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: zoiks
I voted for it.

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

 

[Bibble]

I don't know if a lot of people truly believe that 'up next' is a ban on mixed race marriages, but that would take an amendment to the Constitution of the entire United States. The Supreme Court found in Loving v. Virginia that a state law which prohibited mixed race marriages was unconstitutional. If any state tried to make such an amendment to its constitution it would be stuck down as soon as a case made it to federal court. An amendment to the Constitution of the United States which banned mixed race marriages would never be ratified, therefore such a ban is not 'up next.'

If, one day, a strong case is made that civil unions are practically unequal to marriages, then I think we'll see gay marriage legalized across the country. Today is not that day, but I believe it will happen eventually.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: tenthumbs
I wonder what Prop 8 will be called next time? There's bound to be another, and another and another until it passes.

Ummm it looks like it is going to pass, and there isnt a thing the courts can do about it.

You should be asking what will the Repeal of Prop 8 be called.

The "All Of The Old People Who Voted For This Crap Are Now Dead So We Can Get Rid of It" Act. Will probably take 10-15 years or so. Hopefully Oregon gets rid of theirs by that time too.

 

[Jschmuck2]

I was thinking closer to 25 years.

 

[Genx87]

We allow govt to endorse and recognize marriage in a legal sense and wonder why it prohibits people from partaking in a religious ceremony. Another example of failed logic. Give govt the power then complain what it does with that power.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: MH2007
Wow, I voted no and thought this didn't have a chance to pass (based on polls that I had glanced over while doing my research).

Boy was I wrong. I wonder how many of our fellow Obama voters didn't bother voting on this?

it's a little bit of a mixed bag for me.

all I'm reading about in the news today has been about how this election proves that in america, anyone can do anything... unless you're gay, in which case no marriage/adoption for you.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
We allow govt to endorse and recognize marriage in a legal sense and wonder why it prohibits people from partaking in a religious ceremony. Another example of failed logic. Give govt the power then complain what it does with that power.

Bingo.

Marriage = Church.


And people want to give the government more and more power.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Hopefully, if it does pass, there will be another court challenge against.

People need to realize that because something that is wrong and they want it; does not confir the status on it of it being right.

I don't see where it can go in court. Prior challenges were upheld on the grounds that the CA Constitution outlawed bans. Now the CA Constitution no longer outlaws bans. On what grounds can a judge overturn a Constitutional Amendment? It can't be unconstitutional, and there is no higher power under the law. The Fed Gov't has no jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court wouldn't touch it.

The amendment itself can be tested in court.

Merely changing the state constitution doesn't automatically make the changes legal. They will still have to be ruled upon by the state supreme court.

If the federal government held a constitutional convention, passed a resolution/amendment and it was ratified by the states, it can still be overturned by the SCOTUS. ALL law is open to review and one amendment cannot override another. The first would have to be repealed before the second could be enacted.

Expect this to be challenged and overturned.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: MH2007
Wow, I voted no and thought this didn't have a chance to pass (based on polls that I had glanced over while doing my research).

Boy was I wrong. I wonder how many of our fellow Obama voters didn't bother voting on this?

it's a little bit of a mixed bag for me.

all I'm reading about in the news today has been about how this election proves that in america, anyone can do anything... unless you're gay, in which case no marriage/adoption for you.

It's extremely, extremely bittsweet. I've never felt more connection to a piece of legislation before. I just hope that they'll take this to the Supreme Court and they'll hear it.

On another note, what's going to happen to my gay friends who are married?

 

[Atomic Rooster]

Same-sex marriage ban wins

(11-05) 10:08 PST SACRAMENTO -- After a heated, divisive campaign, fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters backed Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

With 96 percent of the vote counted, the measure was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It had piled up huge margins in the Central Valley, but lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

That pitch also was a big help for the Democratic presidential ticket. Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden could give 100 percent support to the campaign's efforts to preserve rights, even though neither of them supports same-sex marriage.

Isn't that interesting. Even Nobama and his sidekick Joe the Senator are against same-sex marriage.

 

[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

 

[Baked]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

On another note, what's going to happen to my gay friends who are married?

From what I heard on the NPR, the court will decide whether their marriage license will get void. Most likely it will. What a sad day in California. This is like re-segregation of schools, restaurants, and greyhound bus waiting rooms.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Same-sex marriage ban wins

(11-05) 10:08 PST SACRAMENTO -- After a heated, divisive campaign, fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters backed Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

With 96 percent of the vote counted, the measure was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It had piled up huge margins in the Central Valley, but lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

That pitch also was a big help for the Democratic presidential ticket. Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden could give 100 percent support to the campaign's efforts to preserve rights, even though neither of them supports same-sex marriage.

Isn't that interesting. Even Nobama and his sidekick Joe the Senator are against same-sex marriage.

Still bitter, huh? That's ok, time will pass.

Any major political candidate in the foreseeable future has to be anti-gay marriage if they want to win anything. This is the sad truth of our country. The best answer he could have given was "let the states decide," and that's essentially what he did.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Same-sex marriage ban wins

(11-05) 10:08 PST SACRAMENTO -- After a heated, divisive campaign, fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters backed Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

With 96 percent of the vote counted, the measure was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It had piled up huge margins in the Central Valley, but lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

That pitch also was a big help for the Democratic presidential ticket. Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden could give 100 percent support to the campaign's efforts to preserve rights, even though neither of them supports same-sex marriage.

Isn't that interesting. Even Nobama and his sidekick Joe the Senator are against same-sex marriage.

Yes they are which is why this topic wasnt an issue at all in 08.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Same-sex marriage ban wins

(11-05) 10:08 PST SACRAMENTO -- After a heated, divisive campaign, fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters backed Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

With 96 percent of the vote counted, the measure was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It had piled up huge margins in the Central Valley, but lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

That pitch also was a big help for the Democratic presidential ticket. Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden could give 100 percent support to the campaign's efforts to preserve rights, even though neither of them supports same-sex marriage.

Isn't that interesting. Even Nobama and his sidekick Joe the Senator are against same-sex marriage.

Obama stated he is also against amendments to the constitution to prohibit same sex marriage.

Whether that is a state or federal constitution I dont know and i dont think it matters.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster

That pitch also was a big help for the Democratic presidential ticket. Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden could give 100 percent support to the campaign's efforts to preserve rights, even though neither of them supports same-sex marriage.

Isn't that interesting. Even Nobama and his sidekick Joe the Senator are against same-sex marriage.

Oh NO!!!!

You mean to tell me that Obama and Biden can't be wrong? I guess I have to leave the dimension of reality that you think the rest of us live in. :roll:

 

[jonks]

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

I think it's clear to most people here who is defective.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Genx87
We allow govt to endorse and recognize marriage in a legal sense and wonder why it prohibits people from partaking in a religious ceremony. Another example of failed logic. Give govt the power then complain what it does with that power.

Bingo.

Marriage = Church.


And people want to give the government more and more power.

Just because people want to give the government power to do one thing doesn't mean that we want to give them the power to something else. What kind of logic is that? It doesn't make sense.

I'm ok with the government providing my community with a police force but I am sure as hell not ok with them marching legions of troops all over the streets 24/7 to "preserve the peace". The two are not comparable at all.

 

[whylaff]

I'm sure this has been on here before at some point in time in a discussion about same-sex marriage, but since the SCOTUS came up, here is a part of the majority opinion from Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas, which shot down old sodomy laws. The decision was 6-3 in 2003. With its current members, Kennedy is the swing vote in the court.
-----

Two principal cases decided after Bowers cast its holding into even more doubt. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

? These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one?s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.? Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Genx87
We allow govt to endorse and recognize marriage in a legal sense and wonder why it prohibits people from partaking in a religious ceremony. Another example of failed logic. Give govt the power then complain what it does with that power.

Bingo.

Marriage = Church.


And people want to give the government more and more power.

in our society, marriage is a civil contract that, for some people but not everyone, corresponds with religious ceremony.

 

[Xavier434]

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

According to whom? You? Your pastor? Your god?

 

[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.

 

[Jschmuck2]

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

You're a defect.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: jonks

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

I think it's clear to most people here who is defective.

i guess thats all you can say because the reality is politically incorrect. if homosexuality were contagious it would be worse than aids, it would lead to extinction of species. luckily its not, and simply a product of the "good enough" aspect of evolution where defect rates are acceptable to save on costs.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Marriage = Church.

Thanks for the ignorance to accompany your bigotry.

Marriage is a legal creature of the state, independent of any religious institution that confers specific rights, duties and legal standing to the relationship between wedded couples. The state accomodates religious institutions by recognizing marriages performed within their rites and rituals as valid under civil law, NOT the other way around.

Marriage = Church? BULLSHIT! Did you forget about marriages performed by Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other religious organizations?

AFIC, religion is a bad excuse for philosophy. Both attempt to answer questions about the unknown. The main difference between them is that, at least, in philosophy, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

Religion just another political power structure that maintains its power through fear and ignorance. Your statement that marriage = church is proof of that.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

the thing is, it isn't equivalent to race. homosexuality is a defect.

I haven't had dinner with a brilliant, creative, accomplished, award winning guy who happens to be gay since last night at a monthly meeting of an audio professional society. His partner of over twenty years recently suffered a stroke, and he's not at all happy about the inequality bigots like you have heaped on them.

I'd take a world full of people with such a "defect" like him over one filled with ignorant, mean spirited, bigoted twits like you.