Prop 8 to pass?

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.

Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?

The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.

So, if gay marriage:

a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were

Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.

[Koga No Goshi]

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.

Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?

Alright, you want to give up all the tax benefits you will receive when you marry, and later, when you have children? And relinquish all your inheritance, property, insurance and medical decisionmaking rights? Somehow I think all of these arguments of convenience that marriage should be defined by religious tradition and not by law would force a lot of people to change their tune if it were applied to deconstructing heterosexual, legal marriage in western countries.

The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.

You think that gay marriage just lets any male make a medical decision for any other male? This was a really dumb point.

So, if gay marriage:

a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were

Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.

a) This is not a semantic debate about what should go in the dictionary. This is a legal battle over legal rights. Try to ingest that point because all the supporters of yes on 8 have repeatedly failed to do so and gone off on tangents about the traditional understanding of marriage as a cultural or religious concept. We're talking about a legal entity.

b) That is what civil rights movements are all about, spreading existing rights so that they equally apply to everyone.

[HoreTore]

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

Oh, and some no-to-Prop 8 supporters are going way past the crazy nut one the fringe zone:

White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. The clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour, said Scott Freitag, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department.

None of the writing on the envelope was threatening, and the church received no calls or messages related to the package, Freitag said.

Protests in recent days have targeted the Mormon church, which encouraged its members to fight the recently passed amendment banning gay marriage in California.

Authorities are looking into several theories on who sent the letters and why, Pack said.

Anthrax mailed as a white powder to Washington lawmakers and media outlets killed five people and sickened 17 just weeks after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Periodic hoaxes modeled on the anthrax mailings have popped up since then but usually prove harmless.

And then there was that crowd of prop 8 protesters that assaulted an old woman and was close to getting even more violent. There's a lot of hate in those liberal people.

CR

[Strike For The South]

Trample the majority because you are right. That a way!

[Askthepizzaguy]

falls flat... try to sneak... persuade enough people and they'll get it... Ramming it thru... leads to backlashes.

Mmmm....

I'm trying to be serious but it's so hard when you use such colorful language.