z7xfla

I voted for Prop 8, and I'm happy it passed. Score one for the Republicans to counteract Obama's victory.

Alone

There are some things I don't get... Why does it matter for YOU whether people get gay marriages or not? As someone wise said - 'Against gay marriage? Well, then don't get one and shut the f up!'. I don't dislike or like gay people, actually I don't think being/not being gay should determine one's affection towards the person. Yes, I would never have a gay marriage/marriage with many women (polygamy), but if someone else thinks about doing it - it doesn't hurt me, it doesn't affect me, and as long as it stays that way - why the heck intervene? You like to watch TV at 8, someone prefers to do it at 7, you go and ban them?

I understand when people argue against gay rapists and stuff, and call this perverted... But when they say that it's characteristic of ALL gays that gets kinda disturbing... %%% is about same. So step over your fear of unknown, and let people be free. Or soon you will start saying that blacks can not get education as whites can, because blacks are not 'natural' or are 'inferior' or whatever.

kirklandwaterboy

Wow z7xfla, you sure showed him.

iloveagoodbrew

States rights. Prop 8 is neither unconstitutional, nor a violation of 'human rights'. Quit whining.

kirklandwaterboy

we'll see if the california supreme court shares your sentiment.

Jeremybeach

how isn't it a violation of human rights, iloveagoodbrew??
Humans have the RIGHT to love whomever they want/love in the first place...jesus. the ignorance in this country...

mrego

So is it better to have a few judges decide or to let the majority of millions of voters decide (not once, but twice)? Sounds like the difference between dictatorship and democracy to me.

GeekNerd

In defense of the prospective courtcase defeat of proposition 8, it could potentially be a case of ethics similar to Loving v. Virginia, but it would be best if we muster opinions from legal gleanings, as the US, of course, is a constitutional (representative) democracy. Perhaps, in abusing the doctrine of democracy, one is blinded to other core ideas like equality under the law and freedoms of the persons to pursue their agenda.

Now, while the Democrats' amici curiæ are indeed ethically grounded, the actual lead case filed does not argue on equality on the scale of LvsVA at all. It argues on due process of law (oh my, look, another doctrine that one might have overlooked) to determine whether Proposition 8 was in fact an attempted revision.

The mass effect is not the only fundamental at hand.

Edit: Should the Proposition succeed, there are other ideas one might want to check out. For example, the constitution must be consistent in that this insertion into the equal protection clause will have consequences, but more importantly, we shall in fact be setting a rather spectacular precedent of oppression, interpretation and courts' rights (ie Separation of Powers if the interpretations must be skewed to have this Prop put in even with homosexuals identified as entitled to heightened protection...).

Icarus

Equal protection clause anyone?

Icarus

There... fixed it for ya

kirklandwaterboy

mrego there is something known as tyranny of the mob maybe you've heard of it. with your mentality anti-miscegenation laws would still be in place and women still wouldn't have the right to vote.

Alone

That's the difference between Athenian direct democracy and constitutional representative democracy

applejack

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If history is any indication, homosexuals will soon have equal rights.

America's progression is a slow but steady evolution toward "a more perfect union" whereby every individual will have the right to experience life as they see fit for their own highest good. Many conservatives view this as the collapse of our society, but many also used the Bible to defend slavery.

From abolition to women's rights to civil rights to environmental justice, we are always a country moving forward toward "a more perfect union". It's just a matter of time.

Topolover

Jeremy, it's not a law saying that people can't be gay or that they can't love. It's a law regarding the legal status. Granted, I don't think that "love" can only be man/woman, but I have to ask you Jeremy, who do you think you are to attack people in general over the votes of a few? Who are you to question my "nerve", when I had no say whatsoever in Amendment 2 Proposition 8?

Listen kid, if you want to be gay, be gay. I don't care! But leave me out of it. I don't care about your sexuality, and I don't care about California politics. If you don't like what happened with Amendment 2 Proposition 8 then perhaps NEXT TIME you'll be more active in the political scene. Because until you vote and are active in the p[olitical agenda, you really don't have much right to complain.

Think about this, Jeremy-
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." -- Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Jeremybeach

Kid? Thanks for the condescending tone.
anyways, I am trying to understand what you mean, and I can, however...it's just gone too far to be silent and let this pass unnoticed, you know? We (doesn't mean you, but others who want to) have got to be more proactiv about this or the country will not progress forward. And one last thing: The way you phrased it, it sounds like you may think being gay is a choice, when you said, "if you *want* to be gay. I never wanted to. Just like you never wanted to be straight, or whatever you are lol. It just IS. No choice. It simply is just there.