Prop 8

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JD50
A question for the "YOU'RE A BIGOT, BIGOT" crowd. Do you consider Barrack Obama and Joe Biden bigots?

Disclaimer - I have no problem with gay marriage.

No, and Obama sponsored a "no on 8" ad.

There's a difference between holding a personal belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and voting for a constitutional amendment which discriminates against a group of people.

When it comes to things like bigotry and racism, there really isn't a difference. So I guess there really aren't any racists here because no one is voting to re-enact slavery or bring back segregation?

People here that disagree with gay marriage are being called bigots.Since Obama and Biden both hold that view, why wouldn't they be considered bigots as well?

No, people that voted to legally ban gay marriage are being called bigots. There is a big difference between disagree with something and actively trying to legally ban it. I disagree with many evangelical beliefs, but do you see me actively trying to ban their religion? Hell no because I believe they should be given the liberty to make that choice for themselves as long as it is not forcing anything upon others.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: JD50
A question for the "YOU'RE A BIGOT, BIGOT" crowd. Do you consider Barrack Obama and Joe Biden bigots?

Disclaimer - I have no problem with gay marriage.

Depends. Are they actively fighting for and/or support banning gay marriage?

So it's ok for someone to have a bigoted personal belief as long as they go against their convictions in the political arena?

Is it perfect in my eyes? No.

Is it a hell of a lot better? You betcha.

 

[Antny6]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
That is the basis of my argument. California (I'm assuming) has some equal protection clause/amendment in its constitution that this new passed law is in direct conflict with. It will be heard and any sensible judge would rule against it.

That's exactly what California has, an equal protection clause. It's the same clause that caused the CA Supreme Court to rule against the last proposition that tried to ban gay marriage. Prop 22, I believe.

And for whomever was asking if it's retroactive, I do not believe that it can retroactively affect those who have already been married.

The difference is that Prop 8 is an amendment to the CA Constitution. None of the other measures were amendments, they were laws.

If Prop 8 is in fact passed, the effect will likely be this: The CA Constitution Equal Protection clause will state "Everyone has rights, blah, blah, blah..." Then later on the Constitution will say "This has been Amended to remove the ability for homosexuals to marry from the Equal protection Clause."

Considering that the Prop initially went before the CA Supreme Court and they rejected it as misleading, then it was reworded by the Atty General, then the CASC affirmed the Prop, I don't see them later ruling on it. Again, it is NOT in conflict with the CA Constitution, it CHANGES the CA Constitution.

Also, the wording it has is something to the effect of "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", which means that the prior legal marriages would be null and void, as would other unions performed in other states.

The fact that the proposition changes the CA Constitution could become an issue in itself. One question that could be brought to the CA Supreme Court is whether or not Prop 8 revises or amends the Constitution.

If it revises the constitution, then it didn't follow the proper procedure for ratification of a revision. A revision to the state constitution can only be proposed via a 2/3 vote in the legislature or via a constitutional convention.

Prior to the court decision last May, I would have said that the prop was a straight forward amendment (didn't really have any impact on current interpretation of the law, just clarified it), but once the court determined that prop 22 was unconstitutional and that the right to marriage should be extended to same sex couples, it seems to me that Prop 8 is now a revision.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: JD50
A question for the "YOU'RE A BIGOT, BIGOT" crowd. Do you consider Barrack Obama and Joe Biden bigots?

Disclaimer - I have no problem with gay marriage.

Depends. Are they actively fighting for and/or support banning gay marriage?

So it's ok for someone to have a bigoted personal belief as long as they go against their convictions in the political arena?

hell yes

you can believe whatever the fuck you want, but to actually act out and discriminate is an entirely different matter

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JD50
A question for the "YOU'RE A BIGOT, BIGOT" crowd. Do you consider Barrack Obama and Joe Biden bigots?

Disclaimer - I have no problem with gay marriage.

Notwithstanding anything they claim publicly, I doubt Barack Obama or Joe Biden have a problem with gay marriage. I think a lot of politicians are in favor of allowing gay marriage, but don't have the courage to do anything about it.

I tend to agree with you, he probably doesn't have a problem with gay marriage, but I'm just going off of what he actually said. Although he did attend a radical church for 20 years, and it seems like it's the religious folks that tend to disagree with gay marriage.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50

This is reminds me of the liberals that ridicule and make fun of Christians, calling them stupid, deniers of science, etc..

It's not all "christians," just the fundi wingnuts who try to impose their ooga booga mystery oil like creationism on the reality of science and shit a brick when you tell them men didn't walk with dinosaurs. They're welcome to live with their own beliefs. They are NOT welcome to impose their idiocy on others.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: daniel49

people don't want the gay agenda shoved down thier throats. Its really as simple as that.
Gays are allowed thier civil unions and should be content with that.

The gay agenda, lol. Anti-segregation was the black agenda then?

Under-30's voted more then 2-1 against prop 8. These are people who grew up with gay friends and family, and watching gays on tv and in the public sphere. Give this demo 16 years or so and you'll really see some changes.

Bigotry is the past and, for now, the present. It will disappear and people like you along with it.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

This is reminds me of the liberals that ridicule and make fun of Christians, calling them stupid, deniers of science, etc..

It's not all "christians," just the fundi wingnuts who try to impose their ooga booga mystery oil like creationism on the reality of science and shit a brick when you tell them men didn't walk with dinosaurs. They're welcome to live with their own beliefs. They are NOT welcome to impose their idiocy on others.

I saw in a post yesterday you were in Sherman Oaks - we should totally organize an AT Socal get together.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49

people don't want the gay agenda shoved down thier throats. Its really as simple as that.
Gays are allowed thier civil unions and should be content with that.

The gay agenda, lol. Anti-segregation was the black agenda then?

Under-30's voted more then 2-1 against prop 8. These are people who grew up with gay friends and family, and watching gays on tv and in the public sphere. Give this demo 16 years or so and you'll really see some changes.

Bigotry is the past and, for now, the present. It will disappear and people like you along with it.

The world will genuinely be a better place when bigots like "daniel49 (which sounds like kind of a gay name, if you ask me)" have seen the light or are dead and gone.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49

people don't want the gay agenda shoved down thier throats. Its really as simple as that.
Gays are allowed thier civil unions and should be content with that.

The gay agenda, lol. Anti-segregation was the black agenda then?

Under-30's voted more then 2-1 against prop 8. These are people who grew up with gay friends and family, and watching gays on tv and in the public sphere. Give this demo 16 years or so and you'll really see some changes.

Bigotry is the past and, for now, the present. It will disappear and people like you along with it.

segregation...what a crock.
Am glad to see you recieved your new rose colored spectacles from amazon though.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JD50
A question for the "YOU'RE A BIGOT, BIGOT" crowd. Do you consider Barrack Obama and Joe Biden bigots?

Disclaimer - I have no problem with gay marriage.

No, and Obama sponsored a "no on 8" ad.

There's a difference between holding a personal belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and voting for a constitutional amendment which discriminates against a group of people.

When it comes to things like bigotry and racism, there really isn't a difference. So I guess there really aren't any racists here because no one is voting to re-enact slavery or bring back segregation?

People here that disagree with gay marriage are being called bigots.Since Obama and Biden both hold that view, why wouldn't they be considered bigots as well?

No, people that voted to legally ban gay marriage are being called bigots. There is a big difference between disagree with something and actively trying to legally ban it. I disagree with many evangelical beliefs, but do you see me actively trying to ban their religion? Hell no because I believe they should be given the liberty to make that choice for themselves as long as it is not forcing anything upon others.

That is not true, just go back to the beginning of this thread and you'll see Craig calling everyone that he disagrees with a bigot. I know you're not new to P&N, anytime this issue comes up, EVERYONE that disagrees with gay marriage for any reason is called a bigot.

 

[dudeman007]

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

At what time in your life did your dad bone your pathetic ass?

 

[senseamp]

What opponents of gay marriage will accomplish eventually is what they are fighting: undermining of the institution of marriage. By defining "marriage" in a discriminatory fashion and then asking states to reconcile it with anti-discriminatory equal protection clauses will eventually force some states to give up on state recognition of marriage in favor of recognition of civil unions, leaving marriage as no longer a state institution, only a religious one.

 

[scott916]

Although I STRONGLY disagree with the fact that 8 was passed, I think the major issue here is that so many Californians are ok with government telling them what is morally sound. It saddens me that the ideals of the fundamentalist christian thought process have wormed their way into the very rights of americans, and people are HAPPY because the 'sanctity' of marriage is 'protected'. What's next? Making it illegal to cheat on your wife? Do they really feel that they're 'protecting' children from the real world? Give me a break. It's the same people who think that if you shield children from sex education they won't figure out how to insert tab a into slot b. Disgusting.

 

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JD50
A question for the "YOU'RE A BIGOT, BIGOT" crowd. Do you consider Barrack Obama and Joe Biden bigots?

Disclaimer - I have no problem with gay marriage.

Notwithstanding anything they claim publicly, I doubt Barack Obama or Joe Biden have a problem with gay marriage. I think a lot of politicians are in favor of allowing gay marriage, but don't have the courage to do anything about it.

I tend to agree with you, he probably doesn't have a problem with gay marriage, but I'm just going off of what he actually said. Although he did attend a radical church for 20 years, and it seems like it's the religious folks that tend to disagree with gay marriage.

Barack Obama does not support same sex marriage:

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:
Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: scott916
I think the major issue here is that so many Californians are ok with government telling them what is morally sound.

I got the exact OPPOSITE impression.

Cawleefornyuns repeatedly voted for a ban on gay marriage. The government repeatedly overturned it. Finally, the PEOPLE voted and said 'This is the way we want it!'. Now the government will be forced to enact the 'will of the people'.

Am I misunderstanding what you intended, because I think you said the exact opposite of what you meant.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's not all "christians," just the fundi wingnuts who try to impose their ooga booga mystery oil like creationism on the reality of science and shit a brick when you tell them men didn't walk with dinosaurs. They're welcome to live with their own beliefs. They are NOT welcome to impose their idiocy on others.

I donno... see, the idea that Christianity imposes is essentially (and this is quite paraphrased) "hate the gay." Now, that's not saying to hate gay people, but rather not to favor homosexuality ("don't hate the person, hate the act"). Taking this quite literally would make you not vote to support anything that favors homosexuality because that's in direct contradiction. So you'd have to vote yes to proposition 8 or else you're favoring homosexuality, which God does not condone.

Or well... that's what I gather after having my father make me go to (a Baptist ) church for so damned long.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: scott916
I think the major issue here is that so many Californians are ok with government telling them what is morally sound.

I got the exact OPPOSITE impression.

Cawleefornyuns repeatedly voted for a ban on gay marriage. The government repeatedly overturned it. Finally, the PEOPLE voted and said 'This is the way we want it!'. Now the government will be forced to enact the 'will of the people'.

Am I misunderstanding what you intended, because I think you said the exact opposite of what you meant.

I see your point, but why does is the government in ANY position to tell who you can and can't marry in the first place?

 

[OrByte]

As far as Obama and Biden go I wish they would have taken the position that the rite of marriage for religious purposes can be defined however your church hopes to define it. However, marriage as a sanctioned contract with a state shall be open to both hetero and homosexual couples.

I think that would have been sufficient for me.

Really of all the threads we have had about this issue it STILL boils down to the use of the word 'marriage' and who thinks they have the right to define it by law.

imho those that don't support gay marriage/unions because it is a "sin" or "unnatural" or any of the other derogatory claims are the ones that are bigoted. It is an irrational intolerance that defines the word bigot.

I think there are some that fit that label when discussing this issue.

Here is where I think the issue gets tricky, and where I think Obama and Biden are on the wrong side of the argument. When it comes to usage of the word 'marriage' we, as a society, must allow for people to have equal access to the term as a legal definition of civil union. Its such a teeny tiny problem. But for whatever reason people seek to define marriage for their own selfish purposes. And since marriage is the term used by our government to define a civil union then we are STUCK with using the term 'marriage' in both our churches (where it arguably originated) AND our courthouses (where the civil contract is enforced)

That is THE REALITY folks. You can define it in your church however you want to, but the state must have the authority to define the term 'marriage' as well. And when you mess with the legal definition of ANYTHING you have to take into account the ramification to existing law. In our country we already have established equal protection.The term 'marriage' looks like it will soon join the other civil actions that require protection ala voting rights or workplace rights etc etc. Constitutional Amendments are a great way to show what the majority believes and thinks....but this country was never really about protecting the majority opinion right? I believe this country is all about protecting the minority rights. Simplistic outlook I know, but im getting tired of typing and this post is already too long

If we, as a society, historically used the terms 'civil union' in our legal system and 'marriage' in our churches this wouldnt be a problem. But that isn't the case nor do I think it ever will be.

Here is a quote that I find applicable:

Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive. - W.F. Buckley

 

[Antny6]

Originally posted by: senseamp
What opponents of gay marriage will accomplish eventually is what they are fighting: undermining of the institution of marriage. By defining "marriage" in a discriminatory fashion and then asking states to reconcile it with anti-discriminatory equal protection clauses will eventually force some states to give up on state recognition of marriage in favor of recognition of civil unions, leaving marriage as no longer a state institution, only a religious one.

I don't think most gay marriage opponents would see that as a bad thing, or at least wouldn't after talking themselves off the ledge. As far as they're concerned, marriage is a religious institution with recognition by the state. I've tried to explain the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage enough times to enough people to realize that the concept goes over most peoples' heads.

My own mother, who was married by a justice of the peace at city hall, is insistent that her marriage is religious in nature and her marriage license is just legal documentation of that religious union.

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster

Barack Obama does not support same sex marriage:

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:
Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

He also does not support amendments to state constitutions banning same sex marriages.

 

[scott916]

I meant it in terms of enacting into law issues that are only issues on moral ground. I don't feel the government should be in the place to tell you what is right and wrong in moral terms. Sure, tell me that I can't run a red light or kill another person, because that definitely harms others. I just don't like the fact that we can use law to tell people what is the right way to think. It's simply a slippery slope.

 

[chrisho]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster

Barack Obama does not support same sex marriage:

Neither do his supporters, minorities voted nearly 7 to 3 for this ban. An interesting dilemma.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: chrisho

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster

Barack Obama does not support same sex marriage:

Neither do his supporters, minorities voted nearly 7 to 3 for this ban. An interesting dilemma.

blacks != minorities

 

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by: abaez
He also does not support amendments to state constitutions banning same sex marriages.

Wrong. He supports letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.