Amendment 2/Prop 8 -- I CANNOT BELIEVE the nerve of this country - Page 3

romanigypsyeyes · 11-09-2008, 11:23 AM

I'd really like somebody to explain to me how anybody can support this prop. How exactly does one vote for discrimination?

JBVirtuoso · 11-09-2008, 11:30 AM

Supporters don't see it as discrimination. They see it simply as preserving moral values. It also plays on homophobia. When I tell people that I support civil unions between gay couples, they look at me like I'm some sort of traitor (I live in an overwhelmingly white Protestant area). Many people just don't like the idea of gays gaining power in the country.

cpeltz · 11-09-2008, 11:42 AM

^^^
How in the world does marriage equate to power?

Also, a previous poster referenced lawsuits filed against clergy who refused to perform gay marriages. Prop 8 specifically stated that no clergy would be required to perform those marriages, so that argument is invalid.

It is incredibly sad to me that on an election where the majority of voters decided the color of a person's skin was not as important as their intellectual and character qualities, we also decided that who somebody loves is more important than their basic freedoms.

And yes, the right to marry IS a freedom and privilege. BTW, I am married and it was not in a church, so I have no idea why religion has anything to do with what is a LEGAL process. A minister can marry you, but it is not legal until you get a government license. Thus, all marriages are civil unions.

romanigypsyeyes · 11-09-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

They see it simply as preserving moral values.

This argument makes me sick. (I know it's not you saying it, JB, I am talking about in general.

I don't see why the alcohol induced weddings which last for a weekend (ie Brittney Spears) has any more "moral value" than the same-sex couple who has been dedicated to each other, often for decades.

TheBlackLantern · 11-09-2008, 02:00 PM

if gays want to get a license validating their "marriage" i am all for it but only if it is called something else.

loveduck · 11-09-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

in canada, ministers or priests who refuse to wed gay couples have been sued by gay couples and now they legally have to wed gay couples.

That statement is false. In no way has the Canadian government (or any of the provincial governments) forced churches to marry homosexual couples, they are free to choose not to perform same-sex marriages (many do such as the Roman Catholic churches, or other religious institutions such as Islamic mosques). However, some churches (such as the United Church of Canada) support the equal rights movement and are happy to bless and marry gay/lesbian couples.

GeekNerd · 11-09-2008, 05:27 PM

@35

Marriage, as used in State legalese, cannot be legally subject to sentiments that are presented as religious per se. It is a legal issue. Also, as the Connecticut judges pointed out, language can set up barriers as effectively as spacial and material separations in schools and buses.

Why should personal preferences shape the law of the State?

Baelor · 11-09-2008, 05:31 PM

I support any amendment that limits the institutional form of marriage.

Jeremybeach · 11-09-2008, 05:37 PM

to all of you who are against gay marriage,
let me ask you this:

Is there a "straight" or "gay" in the word "marriage?!" It's like one of those delights only reserved for the "highest" of citizens, aka: the straights. And don't get me wrong, I have plenty of straight friends who are on my side and want nothing more than to beat the living daylights out of people who oppress other gays over marriage...
Another example: Straight people, gay people, and EVERYBODY in between has sex, do they not? Do they not!!??? Aren't we all entitled to it? (nevermind the stupid blue laws in the south from the victorian era those hardly apply anymore.) So, then, why is something even lesser of a big deal, marriage, even a matter?

What is it any of YOUR business what anybody else does? It's like restricting different love making. Whose to say what somebody else does is wrong if they like it? It's not a sin. Being gay is not a sin. I don't know why you close-minded people CAN'T UNDERSTAND that just because you were socialized and born into a society where marriage is predominately associated with man and woman, it doesn't have to stay that way? Just because you're not gay doens't mean you can't sympathize...

Nick017 · 11-09-2008, 05:59 PM

Countless people around America and the world believe that homosexuality is a sin, if you think its bad in America, go to Iran. I disagree completely with homophobics, but I think at some point, this issue just needs to drop. Accept that we're blessed to live in a country where you can't force your opinion upon others - if someone wants to think homosexuality is a sin, that's their god-given right. WHile I think Ann Coulter's opinion, or the opinion of Fundamentalist (insert religion)s, is utterly worthless, I try not to whine about it.

Jeremybeach · 11-09-2008, 06:22 PM

try being gay. that's one strike against you from the get go, because not everybody will be in support, whereas if you're straight, you're in safe territory...it disgusts me...except in san francisco, ALL are welcome

Baelor · 11-09-2008, 10:26 PM

"Another example: Straight people, gay people, and EVERYBODY in between has sex, do they not? Do they not!!??? Aren't we all entitled to it? (nevermind the stupid blue laws in the south from the victorian era those hardly apply anymore.) So, then, why is something even lesser of a big deal, marriage, even a matter?"

Marriage is less of a deal than sex? I don't understand.

"What is it any of YOUR business what anybody else does?"

You're right, what is it the business of government in our personal affairs? They shouldn't have any labels for adults. That is, no civil union, no marriage. Most religions don't even recognize civil marriage as real marriage anyway.

Oh, and by the way, closed-minded =/= disagreeing with you. Perhaps if you explained the thought, it would be more convincing.

GeekNerd · 11-09-2008, 11:04 PM

@42
Concorde here.
Piece of the California constitution:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
Full text of 2008.05.15 "On Marriage" Ruling, CA
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ve/S147999.PDF

As Proposition 8 ("Marriage Amendment" when all the votes are counted) lacks a Notwithstanding clause, does not explicitly seek exemption from Sec.7 first used by the judges, cannot repeal any other part of the above-linked (for then it would definitively be a Revision), and does not move to attack the above-linked interpretation, it appears the following reasoning is technically canon:

Marriage is defined between a man and a woman (See Marriage Amendment/Proposition 8)
and hence per se violates the California Constitution } (See Sec. 1, Sec. 7
and hence cannot be endorsed by the State } and 2008.05.15 Ruling)
and hence the institution is not recognized in the State of California.

On the other hand, perhaps Federal Law would require CA to keep Marriage, and the Marriage Amendment's status stops it from changing previous laws, and its wording lacks a Notwithstanding, and on and on in circles.

Of course, while this would be a step in the directions of equality and limited government, we don't know what the court will actually do.

I don't have a background in law yet, so correct me if I have ignored some legal principle or precedent. I'm just taking the laws ad verbatim.

ansar · 11-09-2008, 11:07 PM

Gays are the new blacks.

GeekNerd · 11-09-2008, 11:50 PM

I should have quoted this from the ruling...

Quote:

There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference

... Quagmire, unless the passage of Proposition 8 has changed the "state's general legislative policy and preference".

Quote:

Gays are the new blacks.

Well, the blacks had slavery and other things against them, so maybe this doesn't hold legally. I would agree in a nonlegislative sense (say, due to violence and repression).