Prop 8 to pass?

[KukriKhan]

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

LOL. Truth, Justice, and Crassness for all!

[Devastatin Dave]

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

Well played...

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?

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL. Truth, Justice, and Crassness for all!

Would someone please translate this to Latin so I can put it on my presidential seal. I want one like the Dear Leader has.

[CountArach]

Veritas, Iustitia et Crassus!

[KukriKhan]

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.

[Divinus Arma]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

agreed

[KukriKhan]

I would vote for that and I voted Yes on 8.

Why did you vote 'yes'?

[KarlXII]

Well played...

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?

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?

[ajaxfetish]

Veritas, Iustitia et Crassus!

Just throw an omnibus at the end of that and you've got the whole thing.

Ajax

[Banquo's Ghost]

veritas, aequitas, crassus

And we all know what Crassus got up to...

[Koga No Goshi]

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?

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.

I'm not certain why this is a complicated thing to understand.

[Koga No Goshi]

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?

Southern voters said "no" to interracial marriage and integration for decades. What's your point?

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.

[Redleg]

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.

I'm not certain why this is a complicated thing to understand.

It actually is because the ability to enter into those contracts is not denied to the individuals or the couple.

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?

[Husar]

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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?

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...

I'd agree with DA, the state should not recognise marraige. Its unfortunate the 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.

[Devastatin Dave]

Southern voters said "no" to interracial marriage and integration for decades. What's your point?

.

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....

[Ronin]

Well played...

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?

I defend gay rights but I certainly never called their sexual orientation normal....it's everything but.

but we don´t discriminate against other people that are born not normal so why do it to this group???

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....

I don´t know about you....but I didn´t make a choice about wanting to have sex with girls...I just do....
I imagine gays didn´t choose what atracts them either.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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....

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.

[LittleGrizzly]

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!

[Koga No Goshi]

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....

Allow me to pitch another then.

Black people are entitled to equal rights.

But people who ACT BLACK are not. You can discriminate against those ones.

Same sort of thing you're arguing, really.

[m52nickerson]

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...

I'd agree with DA, the state should not recognise marraige. Its unfortunate the 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.

Condoms for the win!

[Decker]

What Rights are the gays exactly missing and what kind of identity will "marriage" give them? They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more. In my opinion, they will get treated with the respect they feel they deserve if they try and stop playing the victim and trying to relate to being on the same treatment level as when the blacks were slaves. Even CNN mentioned this last night that their whole argument of being treated like slaves apparently didn't work in California's black community. This shows that they aren't like them and any support they were looking for obviously didn't garner enough to win it. It shouldn't come down to race or what sex the person is, this is more than that obviously. What they want contradicts with others belief systems, yet they also have that wonderful accusation of bigotry because our society is trying really hard to be politically correct (or PC) and they also used that as a scare tactic, so it's not like everyone is all peaches and cream. Like I've said earlier, there are better ways to give them the rights that they are looking for and then we don't need this ridiculous fight over marriage. It's a religious constitution, I do not know why people have ignored this... apparently, and if they want the same rights as straight couples then there can be a way to work around it. It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married, it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same. I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states, and this violates the whole separation of church and state. I don't see what's the big deal with people (like me) standing by their own beliefs over the issue, while those who fell for both side's scare tactics are more or less the sheep and letting others to decide for them.

[LittleGrizzly]

They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more.

Yes like those damn blacks when we gave them equality... ohh no wait a second... though i suppose you do have affirmative action in the US, but barring that we gave opressed minoritys equality, its a common scare tactic to pertend minority x wants more than everyone else, a classic excuse to keep minoritys down...

It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married, it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same.

Well gays couldn't get married in america before mass. im not sure why exactly... was it that the goverment or state wouldn't recognise such a union ? thats as good as law...

I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states,

Wasn't marriage around before the major religions we had today, im sure there was some prototype version at least, but anyway there are gay churches, whose to say these gay churches are any less entitled to marriage than some of the major ones ?

[Koga No Goshi]

What Rights are the gays exactly missing and what kind of identity will "marriage" give them? They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more.

This is not a valid argument to deny a group equal civil rights. The list of things that gay couples cannot get, or can get only after drawing up a slew of contracts in an attorney's office (which might be challenged just about anywhere) has been listed earlier in the thread.

In my opinion, they will get treated with the respect they feel they deserve if they try and stop playing the victim and trying to relate to being on the same treatment level as when the blacks were slaves. Even CNN mentioned this last night that their whole argument of being treated like slaves apparently didn't work in California's black community. This shows that they aren't like them and any support they were looking for obviously didn't garner enough to win it. It shouldn't come down to race or what sex the person is, this is more than that obviously.

It has nothing to do with the comparison not being valid, and more to do with the black community being extremely religious and not "totally lib" on every issue like people tend to dismiss them as. Both the black and hispanic communities tend to be liberal economically and conservative socially. And the yes on 8 ad campaigns played to religious fears which had nothing to do with the law in question. And, people do not need to "prove that they deserve" equal rights. If any once spat-upon group in the U.S. had to do that, they probably never would have gained equal rights. You can still find plenty of people today who still hold pre-1965 views on non-white minority groups.

What they want contradicts with others belief systems

There is only one belief system that should matter when it comes to a question of legal rights: equal protections. Whether or not someone doesn't like gay people or gay lifestyles on particular religious grounds is entirely irrelevant.

yet they also have that wonderful accusation of bigotry because our society is trying really hard to be politically correct (or PC) and they also used that as a scare tactic, so it's not like everyone is all peaches and cream.

You think George Takei of Star Trek/Heroes just wanted legally recognized rights with his life partner just to "make America prove it could be P.C."? Or do you think it might have a little more to do with the fact that he worries about what would happen if he were in a critical medical condition and the hospital staff was saying "family and spouses only"? If you think this whole issue is a nitpick over nothing then I can only guess it's because you take the legal rights that come with marriage for granted, and don't appreciate how wide-ranging and important they are for people living together as a family unit.

Like I've said earlier, there are better ways to give them the rights that they are looking for and then we don't need this ridiculous fight over marriage.

You, like almost every other people who approves of Prop 8, don't even understand the law you are talking about. Prop 8 was not "legalizing gay marriage." Prop 8 was writing a BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE into the state constitution. So if you think this was all just some people causing ruckus and trouble, go take that up with the Knights of Columbus and the religious people who spent millions of dollars to get this ban written, who were never going to be negatively impacted by gay people getting married in any way whatsoever.

It's a religious constitution, I do not know why people have ignored this... apparently, and if they want the same rights as straight couples then there can be a way to work around it.

1. No, the Constitution delineates freedom of religion and a separation of church and state.
2. No, telling people to just "work around" a discriminatory law violates Constitutional guarantees of equal protections.

It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married,

It IS law. You are reinventing all of history in order to make your argument. If you think law has no business regulating marriage then you are about 300 years late to the party in the United States.

it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same.

Gay marriage was established without the need of laws? Since when?

I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states, and this violates the whole separation of church and state. I don't see what's the big deal with people (like me) standing by their own beliefs over the issue, while those who fell for both side's scare tactics are more or less the sheep and letting others to decide for them.

I would agree with you that the Knights of Columbus lying in a multimillion dollar ad campaign to get a religious ban rights for groups that live a lifestyle not approved by Christian contemporary moral thinking written into state law is a big violation of church and state. Maybe a court will agree with that and strike it down in the inevitable challenge. But I think you are way off reinventing this issue as just gay people demanding excessive special privileges, complaining, or causing legal trouble. This was a religiously-funded law to ban equal rights for gay people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Gay men are not discriminated against - they can marry a woman just like anyone else.

Why must this contract that gives powers regarding medical procedures etc be limited to those who enter into relationships based upon sexual attraction - that would be discriminating against those who don't want to for whatever reason.

As with the last thread, this is a matter of wording. Nobody can ever change what the traditional meaning of marriage is, if they allow homosexual couples to marry then they are creating a completely different institution.

A much better idea would be to allow everyone to pick one person, whether they are a sexual partner or not, and say that they can say what will happen if they lie dying in hospital etc.

[Xiahou]

The "equality" argument falls flat because the same rules do apply to everyone. I, a heterosexual, cannot marry another man either. The rules are consistent for everyone. The way gay marriage supporters try to sneak "equal rights" into the issue is by talking about "love" or "attraction", neither of which are prerequisites for civil marriage.

The argument is about homosexual couples wanting a government benefit recognizing their union. They can make their case for that- persuade enough people and they'll get it. Ramming it thru the courts however, leads to backlashes like we've seen in California. Now it's part of the state constitution and it will be much tougher to implement even if they do get more support for it.

[Strike For The South]

This really isnt about rights at all. It's about Judicial overreach

[Koga No Goshi]

This really isnt about rights at all. It's about Judicial overreach

No it isn't. The courts are doing their job when they find that a state law violates a Constitutional protection.

Gay men are not discriminated against - they can marry a woman just like anyone else.

I wish this really, really, Bush-level bad argument would be retired by the opponents of gay marriage already. It's utterly ridiculous.

[Strike For The South]

No it isn't. The courts are doing their job when they find that a state law violates a Constitutional protection.

The constitution never states marriage. Its my understanding that they are interpreting the word happiness to include gay marriage and IMO that is very much a stretch and how I feel about the issue shouldn't come into play. A referendum was the thing to do.