God help us.
Yes- Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry 5,387,939 52.5% For 4,883,460 47.5% Against.
:furious3: :shame:
Printable View
God help us.
Yes- Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry 5,387,939 52.5% For 4,883,460 47.5% Against.
:furious3: :shame:
Boo-yah.
Take that, legislating courts.
Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.
CR
Yeah! No gay marriage in my Christain nation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Come on, McCain got beat and Rossi lost as well. This and the defeat of Darcy Burner are what I'm bitterly clinging to. Along with my guns.
CR
Gay marriage supporters could have gotten some sort of civil unions bill through without too much trouble- it's California after all. But instead of convincing people to support it, they did an end around and got an activist judge to rewrite the marriage laws. Now they face a constitutional amendment that will ban it permanently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The lesson? Persuade people to support you instead of using the courts- they can backfire.
And? McCain being defeated does not cause an amendment to the consitution saying "Presidents are only recognized as 30 year old men or woman".Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Score one for states rights.
The election was already over by the time it came to the west coast, and as such the Democratic Turnout later in the day was severely dampened. When you add this with the fact that the "No on 8" group had no GOTV operation, whereas the Yes vote had the churches (Particularly the Mormon church) then there was always going to be much less chance of ithe No vote winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
On the other hand, it ain't over yet. The ACLU has launched a campaign to get the vote declared invalid. Its an interesting read - it says that the Proposition is directly contradicted by the part of the Constitution that led to Gay Marriage being legalised in the first place.
Which is why their argument is so asinine- it's an amendment to the constitution. It's changing what the document says.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Mind you, I'm not saying their case won't win. Liberal judges are supposed to rule based on compassion and empathy, not any sort of rational standards, like the law. :wink:
Really, the initiative is changing the constitution of the state - but those ACLU idiots will support their ideologies first over what's in a constitution always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
CR
Look folks its a constitutional democracy, then its up to the people to vote on what they wish for their society to have. So like in any election if you dont like the results not live in a democracy.
It could of gone the other way also, its the risk one takes when living in a democracy. The people of California have been allowed to vote their opinion on how they wish their society to precede. As long as individual rights are not being violated the new proposition to the constitution should not be overturned by the courts.
So the arguement returns to what rights are being denied to a gay couple? For instance a gay couple can indeed grant their partner most if not all of the marriage priviledges through legal means, one being a civil union and the other being a last will and testiment.
Is it a violation of their individual rights, when they indeed have a path to procede on/
Must be really rough for Log Cabin Republicans...Quote:
Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.
o/ democracy
Wow. Bigotry at it's finest. Makes me ashamed of my fellow Americans. :shame:
Marriage is a religious act brought up and started by religions around the world. It was never really for men to marry men or women to marry women. It was for a man and a woman to marry. It was never started by some government. In the end it's not bigotry, they have all the same rights as straight couples but I guess that's not enough for them and they just want more more more even using the whole being treated like the slave shtick. That's a load of bull, but I guess we "have" to listen to it because they have a right to feel like the slaves? Really. That's rediculous for marriage to be fought over in a state's constitution, it appears that separation of church and state has no application here. So if it did pass and a church refuses to allows gays to marry because of their belief system, who is in the wrong? And calling people bigotry over something like this is exactly what they want you to feel like. That for me, was their biggest problem, they cried wolf and played the "victim" when in reality they have as many rights as any straight couple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Yup, huzzah, a win for misdirection, misinformation and fear tactics based upon prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I heard somewhere between 3 and 5 "yes on 8" ads on the radio for every 1 "no on 8" ad. I don't have hard number stats in front of me but out of the 74 million dollars spent on 8, I can't possibly imagine no had a greater budget than yes. I'm sure a lot of the money was flowing in from all over the country on both ends.
But the "yes" campaign was downright shameful--- they dealt, almost ENTIRELY, with things that were misleading to outright false, and had nothing to do with the law itself. I had only heard the title "Knights of Columbus" here and there a few times before but they definitely have a very bad reputation with me now.
All of the ads covered one of the following points: first graders viewing a lesbian wedding, parents not being able to get notification or remove their children from instruction in school about gay marriage, gay marriage being taught in schools, and churches losing their tax-exempt status.
Whatever teacher took their first grade class to a lesbian wedding, especially considering that either one of the parents or the media or both had a flippin cow over it and made it a scandal in the press, had remarkably bad judgment. But this had nothing to do with Prop 8. Mind you, I think there is nothing wrong with seeing a lesbian wedding and I think the idea that kids were scarred or traumatized or stripped of their moral fiber by seeing one was ridiculous. I just think in the political climate a teacher who thought this wouldn't turn into a fiasco wasn't using very good sense.
Parents not being able to get notification and remove their children from instruction? Come ON. I'm a pacifist, does that mean I am entitled to be notified when wars will be covered in history classes and remove my child? (Assuming I'd want to, which I wouldn't... I don't see how ignorance of war would help me raise my child as a better person.) Somehow I think if this were a story about Muslim parents demanding notification and wanting to remove their children on days when sexual education, reproduction or evolution would be taught in a school somewhere in Paris or Stockholm, the defense our board conservatives will give of this concept would disappear in a hurry.
Teaching gay marriage in public schools (some of the ads were as vapid and petty as to say "it is a joke among children in schools, just like when it was legalized in Massachussetts.. this is a reason to vote for or against a law? That's pretty pathetic) was a lie and a scare tactic, they stopped just short of basically frightening parents that gay marriage was going to be "encouraged" or that kids would be taught to be gay or something. The California schools superintendent pointed out that schools do not teach anything about marriage (other than, I suppose, any incidental conversations where it would come up) and that nothing about Prop 8 had anything to do with "Teaching kids gay marriage"--- prop 8 proposed eliminating gay marriage rights in the California state constitution. How are these two related issues? Pure scare tactic.
Churches losing tax exempt status-- again, had NOTHING to do with Prop 8, and was pure scare tactic. No church has ever or will ever be singled out and punished for refusing to conduct a marriage ceremony which is not in keeping with their particular religion or denomination's beliefs. Take the Mormons, for example--- traditional Mormons do not allow any non-Mormons into Mormon religious ceremonies, including weddings. My coworker, whose friend is Mormon and lives in Utah, married a woman who was from Japan. Her family, not knowing anything about Mormonism (I suspect that the wife didn't know much either) flew out, only to be told they could not actually sit in the church for the ceremony itself because they were non-Mormons. Kinda crappy, but the Mormon Church is not going to lose their tax-exempt status over it.
It's one thing to not approve of gay marriage. It's another thing to try to defend the religiously-based ad campaign which flat out lied and misled people into voting yes on 8 NOT for any of the tired old arguments about protecting traditional marriage, but on things which had nothing to do with prop 8 whatsoever, and played on people's fears. This law might very well have failed if honest arguments had been presented--- so the people supporting yes on 8, apparently feeling smug and self-righteous enough in the correctness of their moral view of banning gay marriage, felt entitled to outright lie and use fear and prejudice and misinformation to get their way. And it worked.
You can call this a victory, but not for democracy, or for morals. Only for getting your way at any cost, using fear and ignorance and prejudice.
This is the same argument used by almost everyone who opposes gay marriage rights. Gay people aren't demanding that religion recognize gay unions. Gay people want the same ability to insure each other on insurance policies, own property together, file taxes together, allow each other medical decisions and hospital visitation access, inheritance rights, pension and social security rights, that any other couple would receive-- if they weren't a gay couple. Legal rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
If you believe marriage is purely religious and governments have no place in the marriage discussion, go take that up with your government, because I guarantee whatever country you live in affords levels of legally sanctioned rights like the ones I listed above based on whether or not the individuals are married. The claim that gay people have the "same rights", but just have to go marry someone of the opposite gender who isn't their life partner, to make medical decisions for them or inherit their property if they die-- is ridiculous.
Your position on gay people's stance about marriage rights does come across as not looking at the issue from their shoes. If you did that, I don't see how you can objectively look at all the rights straight people may take for granted upon marrying someone and say eh, they're nothing, gay people have absolutely no legitimate complaint in not being able to get them.
And no civil union right in existence, anywhere, carries all the power and all-encompassing status of legal marriage. You may get certain rights such as property and hospital visitation, but your "spouse" may not be entitled to receive any of your pension if you die. Or your "spouse" may not be insurable under your insurance policy which only recognizes "single" and "married."
I'm entirely for gay marriage, but doing it by stretching existing laws in court is crossing the line of what should belong the legislature instead of the judiciary.
And apparently it can backfire, too.
Civil unions in the UK and most other European countries that have adopted them are marriages in all but name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Also...
Now are you attempting to claim that these abilities are not present for a gay couple through the legal process?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Inheritance rights are covered by a last will and testiment for examble. If you dont have a will, the probate court can decide how your assets get distributed regardless of your marriage status, historically the court will rule to the spouse, then the oldest offspring, and then to the closest surviving kin. However anyone can protest to a probate court and cause a different ruling. So in today's society to protect inheritance one has to have a last will and testment.
Social Security payments come from the Federal statute concerning who gets surviving benefits. So individual states might not have much influence on that aspect regardless of how they pass same sex marriage statutes.
Medical decision can be made via a living will and a power of attorney, which often has to be done even for hetro-sex couples. Only situation I know of is a care of a child, and the genic parent has priority over the apodted parent. Adopted parents have the same right regardless of sex if the genic parent is not available. So this is not a same-sex marriage issue from what I can tell.
Own property together is also covered on how one purchases the property - regardless if you married or not.
So that leaves insurance policies - most insurance companies have policies on this, and some even cover same-sex couples alreadly. So I am not sure if this qualifies as a violation of rights/
file taxes together goes back to the Federal statute for everyone, and each state can cover how that is done for their state, but it does not override the Federal requirement. So in this aspect there might be a case of violation of a right, but one would have to establish the case that paying taxes is a right, not a requirement of the law.
So like I stated earlier what individual rights are being denied because an individual is gay? What priviledges are being denied to a couple who happens to be gay? are those priviledges by necessity also rights?
I dont see that as a valid arguement either since a medical decision can be made by having established the right documentation, for examble my wife also has a power of attorney to make medical decisions for me if I become incapatiated - I did this because we currently live in two different states to insure she has the ability to make that decision for me. Even hetro-sex couples have to have this power of attorney to insure medical care is within what the individual wanted, its called a living will I believe.Quote:
If you believe marriage is purely religious and governments have no place in the marriage discussion, go take that up with your government, because I guarantee whatever country you live in affords levels of legally sanctioned rights like the ones I listed above based on whether or not the individuals are married. The claim that gay people have the "same rights", but just have to go marry someone of the opposite gender who isn't their life partner, to make medical decisions for them or inherit their property if they die-- is ridiculous.
Your spouse can be un-insurable regardless of her being of the same sex or a different sex.Quote:
And no civil union right in existence, anywhere, carries all the power and all-encompassing status of legal marriage. You may get certain rights such as property and hospital visitation, but your "spouse" may not be entitled to receive any of your pension if you die. Or your "spouse" may not be insurable under your insurance policy which only recognizes "single" and "married."
Pensions now can only be inheritable if they are established as such. Spouses are not automatically entitled to some types of penisions.
Like I said before - establish the proof that individual rights are being denied to gay couples and I might change my mind on the issue, but as far as I can tell there individual rights are not being denied. state sanctioned priviledges might be limited - but one can have their ability to drive an automobile denied because of poor vision - its a state sanctioned license event - which means it is not a right in itself.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
@ Decker - I don't give one hoot about various religious institutions' views on marriage/civil unions/partnerships/whatever the hell you want to call it. If religion X refuses to recognize partnerships between gay couples then I don't care, that's entirely within their right to do so. But these folks deserve every single other legal right and benefit that normal "straight" couples do, and that's a government issue.
Edit - @ Redleg - I apologize in advance, I skimmed your post, gotta get to work. A number of points you made in your post are incorrect, inheritance being one of the more glaring ones, there are quite a number of laws that trump will statements and requirements. The fact of the matter is that current legal venues and instruments have a huge gap when it comes to offering gay couples the same means as straight couples. My (gay) friend once gave me a big rundown of what some of the larger issues are, but suffice to say that there's a rather large discrepancy. If folks are curious I can ask him again and post them.
I cannot believe how naive you're all being. Lambda has come out and said they were hoping for somebody to modify a State Constitution. Why? Because that is what it takes to get the federal government involved. You cannot pass ammendments to your state constitution that do not jibe with the federal constitution. As soon as this ammendment gets puts into the California Constitution, its' going to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which will find that all attempts at the state level to legislate or decide by executive act at the state level are unconstitutional, by virtue of the 14th ammendment. From there, either it will go to the Supreme Court, which will validate that decision, or as I predict it won't be picked up and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Decision, which trumps state constitutions, will be the final say on the matter.
Translation, this is the backdoor for gay marriage (no pun intended) to become a national law. Sorry folks, game over. Even in Utah, they're going to have to allow for gay marriage. My guess is it will happen sometime before June, to allow for the traditional wedding season. ~D
Why don't we just ban all marriage? :beatnik:
If they were real christians they'd do some actual good with the 25 million dollars they spent on the campaign rather than pushing through an issue that will just be on the ballot again next year.
Good for California. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the vote, the fact is, this is how things are supposed to work. They wanted to change the constitution, so they did it with a vote. If people cared about the bill, they should have showed up. If they wanna change it again, vote on it again. :shrug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
And if they were really good Christians, they would use that paper money to build a pyre with which to burn gay witches on.
So you don't like the opposition to gay marriage?!? Welcome to planet Earth! Please remain seated while the tour bus is in motion and kindly refrain from feeding the primates. We hope you enjoy your stay!Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Seriously, since its inception marriage has been an exclusively heterosexual union of man and woman coming together for the purpose of creating legitimate offspring and the secondary purpose of strengthening inter-familial ties (i.e. blood bonds)... period. This whole love marriage thing is a recent phenomenon. Even more recent is this phenomenon where couples who have no intention of having children get married anyway... I mean, what's the point?!?
Love?!? What's love got to do with it? What's love but a second hand emotion?
Alright, I don't think I was exactly clear in my initial post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
What I'm saying is that I believe that marriage is more of a religious tradition than how it was presented in the campaigns for and against prop 8. I think that they should get the rights, but fighting over them on something that is known to be a touchy subject is just the wrong way about it. From the outset I thought prop 8 was wrongly written, and figured that there are better ways for them (the gay community) to recieve any rights that they need or need fixing. I don't see them wanting the whole image of marriage more than the legal rights that accompany it. There are better ways to go about aquiring the necessary rights for them whereas I see marriage and religion going more hand-in-hand with the legal rights attached.
The same shame I feel for electing a commie after we've spent most of the last century trying to keep them from taking over. Sometimes you can't have everything you want....Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Like union seniority rights, democracy is great till one doesn't get what they want, then it's not fair.
Did you not read the story Don posted about that NJ Church losing part of their tax exemption for not letting lesbians marry on property they owned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
I don't want gay couples to be called 'married' in any way. Civil contracts that let them have hospital visitation rights are acceptable, but this isn't about 'equality' - no one's rights are being denied because people of the same sex can't marry.
EDIT: So much has been made of opponents being 'homophobic' or other nonsense. But its because the gay lobby is trying to tear down an institution sacred to most Americans, even in California, that this passed. Three constitutional gay marriage bans passed (by 62% in Florida!) this election, which might be enough to stop the gay lobby for a while.
CR
This issue is going to come up again, and again, and again, and again, until the rights are recognized. It is not really my purpose to "convince" people who are against it. There were people who went to their graves against interracial marriage rights and fully recognized equal rights for black people. Let 'em rot. The current unequal recognition of full rights--- or, as Redleg suggested-- having to go and spend a lot of money with an attorney to draw up complicated equivalent rights privately, which you then might get tied up in court anyway having to defend when they are challenged by family members or hospital administrators or an insurance company, is not supportable and courts are doing their job PERFECTLY when they find problems with the double standard. The idea that courts have absolutely no role at all-- indeed, that they are usurping power and abusively "legislating from the bench" when they make a ruling that a particular law is unconstitutional or violates equal protections, is regressive. If not for courts, if every decision was left purely up to popular legislation, I would not be surprised to still see antimiscegenation on the books in many southern states. Or the stay of Japanese Americans in internment camps to have lasted four times longer than it did. Or for schools in the south to still have formally segregated white and black proms. A state of unrecognition of gay equal rights is going to go the way of the dinosaur, but the social conservative and religious constituencies in the U.S. are just being used in the meanwhile as tools to come to the polls for a hotly controversial wedge issue, and a ton of money is being spent on it. I have extreme skepticism that the huge money people are willing to spend to encode bans on gay rights into state or Federal constitutions is only out of sheer moral conviction and nothing to do with the fact that this gets Americans of a certain political stripe energized to get their butts to the polls.
Nobody from either side responded to me, so I'm going to repeat... just so I get the "I told you so credit" in February or March. This is going to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, who will then make gay marriage the law of the land. I don't care what got approved in a state constitution, the lowest federal court trumps it.
hur dur hur redurstibyoootin teh welthQuote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
how soQuote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Read the link I posted from the ACLU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I read it. And that was not the story at all. It was not a church. It was a group called the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association that owned a piece of property (a gazebo, to be exact) on a beach, that they rented out at a profit to any group who wanted to have any sort of social gathering there. Until, that is, a gay couple wanted to rent it to have their civil union ceremony there. Did I mention that this prime located piece of real estate was tax exempt? Did I also mention that they also received all sorts of public money for things such as boardwalk repairs? And then, they have the balls to say "Regardless of the state law saying that gay civil unions are okay, we are a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION and are within our rights to refuse to let a gay couple use our structure, notwithstanding the fact that their gay tax dollars fund it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Puh-leaze...
Here is the full story:
http://blog.nj.com/steveadubato/2007...both_ways.html
Silly Rabbit, tricks are for kids.
Nice try, though...
nm.
Huh. Really, isn't that what the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd is doing? Putting their religion and ideologies over what the Constitution says?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Can anyone find me An actual California Constitution? I really can't give an opinion until I read how the define marriage and if it should be there in the first place.
I can't find anything in the California constitution that says "important" changes must go through the legislature. I see both routes to amendment listed, but nothing that gives one more importance than the other. Like I said, their case is nonsense- it'll be a complete travesty if it's decided in their favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I doubt marriage is even mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
If its not mentioned than these Judges are kind of dumbQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Okay, first a point of clarification. Non-Mormons are not allowed to attend Mormon temple ceremonies (neither are Mormons without a valid and current temple recommend). The vast majority of Mormon services and religious ceremonies do not take place in temples, and are open to anyone who wishes to attend. Furthermore, if your friend and his fiance failed to clearly explain the situation and their intentions to her family well ahead of time, that was gross negligence on their part and very discourteous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Second, unless I'm mistaken, this amendment is not retroactive. I know my lesbian aunts in Berkeley were planning to be married before the election for that reason. Their union should still be legally protected, right? They've been together for many years and have two children, so it's about time their family becomes official, imo. And in case it hasn't come through already, not all Mormons are against gay marriage--just the vast majority ~:(.
Finally, as we live under a democratic nation and the will of the people of California has been expressed, even if misguided by whatever campaign tactics, the decision should be respected as final and legally binding until further legislation reverses it. As some posters have already mentioned, the effort to allow the legal protections of marriage to gay families must start with winning people over and move on to popular legislation. The straightforward way is the best.
Ajax
Quote:
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
This could very well be what the ACLU meant.Quote:
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.
Not very convincing at all.
How so? I mean, it's in the State constitution, and if I recall, you were in support of following the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I am. However expanding the meaning of "happiness" to include this cheapens the meaning of the document. Especially when you consider the courts found it prudent to do so between the 7 of them. If that is in fact what the constitution says and there was no mention of marriage before the judges made there decision then a referendum was a way to go. It sucks that it didnt pass but I have a hard time finding this illegal. The ACLUs case is on sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Actually what really sucks is gay rights is now being taken back because crazies on both sides want there oppnent to be run into the ground.
No, they're changing the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
CR
Things going through the courts really isn't going to help the situation, look what roe vs wade did for abortion then compare it to the abortion situation in europe, i don't think gay marriage will be so decisive in the years to come as its obviously not as easy to get emotional over but it could create some negative feelings for a long time....
point out the more glaring ones, since my uncle died and was able to establish is requirements exactly the way I stated. Oh and by the way he was one of my favorite people in the world and was gay. So it varies by state, and how the individual establish how they desire their estate and their health to be handled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Actually it doesnt cost a lot of money to establish a power of attorney, a living will, nor a last will and testiment. In fact its really rather inexpensive in most cases - a computer program and a notary republic will accomplish most if not all of the requirements with a court cost to file the records in the County or City Court house. A whole lot cheaper then getting married.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Again I would like to see an accounting of what rights are being denied to a gay individual, and what is being denied to them because they are gay?
I see a lot of arguement but nothing that points out where the state is actually denying them a right when the state sanction marriage is nothing but a license - a contractual relationship between two people. Are you attempting to state that gay couples are not allowed to enter into contractual relationships with each other?
Friend, I heard you the first time. I didn't respond because I suspect you are correct. I'll confirm your ITYS if need be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Well Don I am all in favor of the courts striking down unconstitutional laws or in many cases the just poor legislative laws that often are the attempt in a defense of marriage legislative law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
However I think a federal court will have a hard time striking down a constitutional amendment that a state has done without first having the arguement that demonstrates that the amendment in itself is against the United States Constitution.
Here is the problem with the gay marriage movement - the state sanction marriage is a license - nothing more nothing less, it allows the state to recongize a simple contractual relationship between two people. The state has the ability to define what constitutes what type of contractual relationship. The DOMA has not been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and until that act is revoked by congress or ruled unconstitutional the states are able to establish what constitutional amendments or laws that define marriage as thier individual constitutions allow. The courts hands are actually tied to the legalize of the written word of the legislative law or the amendment. And amendments will be very difficult to rule unconstitional if they followed the established process
What many dont realize is that in itself marriage does not entitle automatic insurance coverage, or the ability to recieve your partner's pension. This has to be established by the agencies and the companies issuing them.
Those who wish to protest this action by the voters of California need to protest the fact that the campaign by those who wanted the measure voted down did not campaign against it strong enough or could not counter the emotional aspects of the amendment.
So it goes back to my point - exactly what individual rights are being denied to the individual who happens to be gay with this constitutional amendment?
No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
You say tomato, I say tomahto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
And more importantly, the California voters said "no" to gay marraige. How many times must the California voters have liberal activist judges disenfranchise their votes to satisfy you? :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
I'm personally just jazzed that DevastatinDave is defending California voters. Woodathunk?
Its part of dave's new 50 state stratergy...
YOU DOWNLOAD A GIG OF PORN EVERY FRIDAY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
But I'm not pounding my :daisy: at the city courthouse now am I?:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Wait, so those who masturbate frequently can't get married? HARDCORE MAN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
LOL. Truth, Justice, and Crassness for all!Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Well played...Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
No, my point was that I keep my perversions within the confines of my home and don't need to government to recognise them. No matter how much people try to make homosexuality a "normal" sexual tendancy, its still a perversion and there is no need for it to be recognised put at the same level as a normal marraige between a man and a woman. Its not religous, its sanity. The voters have decided, I thought liberals were the great defenders of the mob rule?:yes:
Would someone please translate this to Latin so I can put it on my presidential seal. I want one like the Dear Leader has.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Veritas, Iustitia et Crassus!
veritas, aequitas, crassus
-edit-
CA's "Iustitia" is probably better. My "aequitas" for justice, is older, more along the lines of equalling, making even, revenge (sometimes), rather than the more high-falutin' sense of a moral justice.
Only one answer to this.
Ban ALL marriage. The state has no place in religious matters. Marriage is a religious union of a couple. Civil Union is a contractual agreement between two parties.
All couples should first get married by their respective religious authority and then apply for a civil union. This can be same sex or opposite sex.
It solves the matter for everyone!
I would vote for that and I voted Yes on 8.
agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Why did you vote 'yes'?Quote:
I would vote for that and I voted Yes on 8.
So your views that Homosexuality is a "perversion" is based on what? Could it be....religious beliefs? What is honestly perverted with two men loving each other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Just throw an omnibus at the end of that and you've got the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Ajax
And we all know what Crassus got up to...:wink3:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I'm saying that having to privately draw up legal contracts, at private expense, and at the risk of having to run around with papers and documents everywhere and still have people challenge your "rights", for all the various rights automatically conferred with a marriage license is not equal protections under the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I'm not certain why this is a complicated thing to understand.
Southern voters said "no" to interracial marriage and integration for decades. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
This issue isn't going to go away. The reason these things wind up going to courts is precisely because overt discrimination and unequal treatment requires widespread social consent in order to continue. Getting the same people engaging, or tolerating, discriminatory treatment to vote against their ability to continue in said discrimination is why so many civil rights advances have their birthplace in courts, with overarching Federal legislation frequently following along after the fact.
That plus, the overt LYING in the multimillion dollar "yes on 8" ad campaign scared people into voting for 8 on things which had nothing to do with 8. The belief that you are so morally correct in opposing gay marriage, that you are morally justified in lying on a massive level to get your way, is not the proper functioning of the democratic process IMHO. If you just listened to the ads you would think 8 had to do with whether or not gay marriage should not be taught in public schools, or that kids should not have to attend gay weddings in their education. I never heard a single yes on 8 ad that in any way even approached telling the truth about what the law was. I didn't even know it was a ban in the state constitution until I read more about it online.
It actually is because the ability to enter into those contracts is not denied to the individuals or the couple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
BTW when you get married to a opposite sex you still have to fullfil many of those same requirments to insure your personal desires are meet. For instance I am married and have a last will and testment and a living will, along with a power of attorney for my wife. All of which cost me very little in expense to get accomplished - in fact all was less then the cost of the marriage license and the marriage cermony. So a marriage license does not automatically mean a right is established. Especially when the couple has to be seperated by state lines, for what ever reason.
However you still haven't address what specific rights are being denied, your speaking of a contractual relationship that is regulated by the state. Is the state denying the same-sex couple the abilility to enter into a contractual relationship?
Well, you can say what you want, but it is kind of ironic, that in a democracy a referendum asking the demos should be illegal because of a constitution. :dizzy2:
Nope its based on the FACT that feces is not clean. My arguement is base on science. I thought you libs worshipped science? Homosexuality is pervered and spreads more STD's than any other form or sexual activity. But, I'll never convince you of this even if I gave you all the stats from the CDC or any other study. So...Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
I'd agree with DA, the state should not recognise marraige. Its unfortunate the :daisy: needs to ruin things that are good for society as a whole, but hey, I guess since we won't recognise legal votes on the issue, we have to piss on everyone's parade.
This is the lamest arguement from the left about this topic. You don't choose what pigment your skin is, but you do choose what orafice you use for sex. Homosexuality is an action. Yawn....Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I defend gay rights but I certainly never called their sexual orientation normal....it's everything but.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
but we don´t discriminate against other people that are born not normal so why do it to this group???
I don´t know about you....but I didn´t make a choice about wanting to have sex with girls...I just do....Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I imagine gays didn´t choose what atracts them either.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Plus the obvious fact that the idea of marriage has nothing to do with skin colour, all it requires is one man and one woman.
Homosexuality is pervered and spreads more STD's than any other form or sexual activity.
A great reason to encourage gay people to get married and stick with one long term partner!
good argument!
Nope its based on the FACT that feces is not clean.
but you do choose what orafice you use for sex.
No one seems to have any qaulms about straight couples who engage in anal getting married, infact i don't really see why what type of sex couples have has anything to do with marriage or the goverment (assuming consenting adults obviously)
This issue is eventually going to get resolved in favour of gays, every generation the hate against gays drops slightly and a more open acceptance of them evolves, there is no point forcing this issue through the courts, it is simply a waiting game now...
Think about it, 10 20 years ago gay marriage wouldn't even be an option in any state, now already a few have approved of it and a despite a far worse funded campaign they only lost by 500,000 votes, its just a matter of time....
all it requires is one man and one woman.
All you need is love!