California Proposition 8

[often mrunderstood]

“The door’s wide open now… it’s going to happen… whether you like it or not.”

....guess not

 

[joobz]

Now now, lets be honest here.

ok

No one is telling gay men and women they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens.

um...

The law simply states that a man can only marry an unrelated woman..and a woman can only marry an unrelated man.

Which is to limit the rights of gay men/women as they do not gain the right of inheritence, medical rights, adoption rights....
So you just contradicted yourself.

That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesnt just "discriminate" against same-sex couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.

Because we arbitrarily draw the line to include incest, that poisons the well against gay marriage? Do you really think lumping the argument in this way helps your point?

It may not be "fair". It may not feel "right". But society has the right to make such rules.

By your argument, it would be acceptable for society to make any arbitrary law.
Such as Jim Crow laws....

Do you really want to see mothers marrying their sons?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.

Because.......um......
Do you have an arugment supporting this assertion or do you believe making a blanket statement acts as a ward against an argument you are uncomfortable with?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm not saying that women should be treated as secondary citizens. I'm just saying that as democracy is one of the main pillars of society, the tradition of male-only voting needs to be upheld. Democracy by definition has always been male-only, and turning democracy upside-down by allowing women in will wreck it completely! Once we throw out the traditional approach by allowing women to vote, where do we stop? What do we do when the liberals start pushing for children to vote? Do you want to see dogs and cows line up to vote for candidates? Do you support the ability to vote for several candidates at once? Where does the slippery slope end?

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is preposterous and insulting.

Only because you oppose Apartheid. KKK members accept that the analogy is quite apt - back in the Civil Rights Movement days, opponents of inter-racial marriage used exactly the same arguments you do. Tradition, slippery slope, the yuck factor, a causation argument blaming inter-racial marriage for societal ills, and the appeal to tyranny by majority.

The same arguments.
The same bigotry.
The same fears.
How are they not the same?

Shall we even go into the real meaning of marriage, when it was coined hundreds of years ago?

Back in the early days "Marriage" was only used as means to procreate, and to bear children. And at that time, women were treated more like property than a human being with their own choices to make. Most women couldn't even choose the person they wanted to "marry" and it was determined for them by their parents, to whom they could pay to marry their daughter (dowry).

So this whole "protect traditional marriage" is nothing but a crock of ****. Because "traditional" marriage wasn't ever threatened. If we wanted "traditional" marriage, then women would be losing their rights; their parents would choose their spouse, and marry them off to whomever they paid them for their daughter.

In the five months since California allowed same sex marriages, how has the union of two women, or two men hurt the marriage of heterosexual married couples? Did these couples endure undo hardship because of these marriages? Did they suffer financial losses? Physical pain?

Anyone who roots for 'traditional marriage' should watch Ibsen's play A Doll's House.

 

[dudalb]

California's reputation as a liberal state derives mainly from San Francisco and Hollywood. Much of the rest of the state is moderate to conservative. Ronald Reagan came from California, after all.

It is sad that the opponents of Prop 8 forgot this basic fact, and launched a campaign that preached to the converted...not those you needed to persuade.

“The door’s wide open now… it’s going to happen… whether you like it or not.”

....guess not

The Mayor of San Francisco 's comments were played non stop on the pro Prop 8 commericials. A good indicator that with friends like this, the Gay community in California does not need many enemies.

It is heartbreaking that a lousy piece of legislation passed partly because those against it screwed up .

 

[boloboffin]

There is a lawsuit seeking to declare the amendment invalid.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw - it removes a protected constitutional right - here, the right to marry - not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, Senior Counsel with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

 

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by parky76
That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesn't just "discriminate" against same-sex couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.

You know the question I have for you parky is WHY STOP THERE?

We used to have laws in this country where Blacks couldn't marry whites,
Catholics couldn't marry protestants either.


WHY NOT PROTECT MARRIAGE AGAINST THESE THINGS TOO????

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Now that your misunderstanding has been pointed out and corrected, will you concede your mistake?

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

Is this meant to be provocative? Setting aside the anti-American tone, it's mostly clumsy and, well, wrong.

Surely you don't wish to be wrong?

 

[Puppycow]

Does this proposition affect civil unions?

Are there practical consequences or only symbolic ones?

 

[Puppycow]

Take some solace in that exit polls showed that the young demographics under 30 overwhelmingly voted against this. I think this will be reversed in the future.

 

[Mitchell314]

And I thought we were supposed to protect civil rights. Silly me. Now I see it all so clearly. Don't you guys realize that being understanding of other people is morally wrong? Our own personal insecurities are by far more important!!! Don't you realize that if it had been Adam and Steve, we wouldn't be here. Well okay, maybe, but because Eve had an affair with one of them, but that's not the point! [/colbert voice]

 

[Bob Magness]

I am very surprised....even shocked...that 60% of the voters in Cali. voted for liberal social-democrat Barak Obama...and then did a complete 180 and voted to ban same-sex marriage.

Totally mystified. It makes no sense. Talk about being inconsistent.

I suggest they come up with a compromise allowing for same-sex domestic partnership.

I wasn't surprised, just look at the demographics. Barrack Obama being on the ticket was likely the impetus for the black community showing up to the polls in record numbers. Now, there is a group of Democrats that would be expected to have voted for Prop 8: religious Democrats. I would venture to say that the majority of the black community falls into this group.

So while I think most of us can agree that a President Obama will be a much better friend to the gay community than a President McCain, the fact that Obama was on the ticket probably lead to Prop 8 not being passed.

While the Gay Rights Movement lost in regards to this particular law, I look at the day as an overall win for the gay and lesbian community.

As Fordama said, the last time a similar law was put up for vote to the Californians 61% voted for it. This time it was just about even. I look at this as the people slowly but surely turning toward common sense. A couple more years we will have it in the bag, even if the US Supreme Court doesn't hear the case.

On a personal level I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together. But before that happens the FEDERAL government needs to recognize civil unions so that a civil union in one state is recognized in every state. Otherwise, civil unions are worthless.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Wow, that was original.

 

[Terry]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

Way to gloat over depriving people of rights, you must be so proud of yourself.

 

[kallsop]

There is a lawsuit seeking to declare the amendment invalid.

As I've said before, how hard can it be in California to find some judges to overturn the wishes of the people? I'd put money on it.

 

[Zygar]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

It saddens me that I was raised by a Mormon family. And that the Mormons, who I oft defend, have turned out to be such bigots.

 

[Terry]

I still want these ******** to look me in the eye and give me one tangible piece of harm that my marriage has done them. And yes, it has to be real actual harm, not just making baby Jeebus cry.

 

[hcmom]

I still want these ******** to look me in the eye and give me one tangible piece of harm that my marriage has done them. And yes, it has to be real actual harm, not just making baby Jeebus cry.

They're being forced to act as if tolerance is a good thing, and it's killing them, which is harmful to them, even if the rest of us don't mind.

 

[Bob Magness]

I still want these ******** to look me in the eye and give me one tangible piece of harm that my marriage has done them. And yes, it has to be real actual harm, not just making baby Jeebus cry.

Sorry Terry, I don't think you are going to get an answer other than that. I am usually pretty good at seeing the "other side" of things. I am strongly pro-choice but I can make myself see where the pro-life folks are coming from. I believe in universal healthcare and state-paid education all the way through college, but I can see the other side.

As for this case, I can't wrap my mind around it. Religious bigotry is the ONLY explanation. How, how, HOW does you marrying another adult of the same gender infringe on my liberties in ANY way?! It doesn't. Plain and simple. It has to be religious bigotry.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not sure if Bob Baylock was being serious, but if he was another person in the other Prop 8 thread mentioned how many (conservatives especially) seem to think of the judiciary as some extension of "the will of the people" and judgments are given a litmus test as to whether or not a decision conforms to the polling of the day.

This displays a frightful ignorance of the machinery of democracy: the judiciary is supposed to be insulated from the will of the people. Thats why you have lifetime appointments, its why here in Canada, we don't elect judges or DAs. The principle is one wherein the "will of the people" is expressed through the legislature, and the judiciary is there - apart from the "will of the people" - to determine legality based on other things, such as stare decisis, constitutionality, and so on.

I was serious. Perversions such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and such, are not equivalent to a proper and normal marriage between a man and a woman, and I am solidly opposed to society being forced to pretend that they are. So, it seems are enough of my fellow Americans to get laws passed in three states to this effect this last election.

As far as the authority of judges, I'll refer you to Thomas Jefferson:

"You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

—Thomas Jefferson in a letter to W. Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820—​

Civics 101 man!!

EDIT: and while we're talking about the "will of the people" - let us remember that "the will of the people" is only sacrosanct in the paint-by-number realities of ideologues. There's a reason political science has developed a term called "tyranny of the majority" - that's right tyranny, and this proposition (along with the ban on ferrets I mentioned in the other thread) is a prime example of it...

On the other hand, any legitimate government derives its authority entirely from the will and consent of those who are governed thereby. A government that entirely rejects the clearly expressed will of the people does so without legitimate authority.