Prop 8 to pass?

[Don Corleone]

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.

[CrossLOPER]

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....

hur dur hur redurstibyoootin teh welth

[CountArach]

Like union seniority rights, democracy is great till one doesn't get what they want, then it's not fair illegal.

Fixed.

[Strike For The South]

Fixed.

how so

[CountArach]

how so

Read the link I posted from the ACLU.

[Goofball]

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?

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."

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...

[Strike For The South]

nm.

[KarlXII]

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.

CR

Huh. Really, isn't that what the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd is doing? Putting their religion and ideologies over what the Constitution says?

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Xiahou]

Read the link I posted from the ACLU.

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.

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 doubt marriage is even mentioned.

[Strike For The South]

I doubt marriage is even mentioned.

If its not mentioned than these Judges are kind of dumb

[ajaxfetish]

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.

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.

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

[KarlXII]

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.

(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.

This could very well be what the ACLU meant.

[Strike For The South]

Not very convincing at all.

[KarlXII]

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.

[Strike For The South]

How so? I mean, it's in the State constitution, and if I recall, you were in support of following the Constitution.

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.

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Huh. Really, isn't that what the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd is doing? Putting their religion and ideologies over what the Constitution says?

No, they're changing the constitution.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

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....

[Redleg]

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.

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.

[Redleg]

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.

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.

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?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[Redleg]

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.

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.

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?

[Devastatin Dave]

Huh. Really, isn't that what the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd is doing? Putting their religion and ideologies over what the Constitution says?

No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.

[KarlXII]

No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.

You say tomato, I say tomahto.

[Devastatin Dave]

You say tomato, I say tomahto.

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?

[KukriKhan]

I'm personally just jazzed that DevastatinDave is defending California voters. Woodathunk?

[LittleGrizzly]

Its part of dave's new 50 state stratergy...

[CrossLOPER]

No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.

YOU DOWNLOAD A GIG OF PORN EVERY FRIDAY.

[Devastatin Dave]

YOU DOWNLOAD A GIG OF PORN EVERY FRIDAY.

But I'm not pounding my at the city courthouse now am I?

[CrossLOPER]

But I'm not pounding my at the city courthouse now am I?

Wait, so those who masturbate frequently can't get married? HARDCORE MAN.