Wasn't Arnold against prop 8?I'll be honest, I'm not sure. One of the commercials said he was and they also mentioned Obama, but then I read in the Liberal aka LA Times that gays were mad because Obama didn't take a firm stance on it. I think gay marriage is like abortion, you will never really change how people think about it.
A lot has been made on the news of the protests by gay activists and their supporters, seething over the passing of Prop. 8, which once again defines marriage as union between a man and a woman.
Those protests have targeted a Mormon church there. There have been fights, vandalism, and intimidation.
But, here's the rub:
1) There ain't that many Mormons in California.
2) It's been stated long and loudly, that black voters (to the tune of 70%) voted for Prop. 8. And black voters have made it no secret that their overwhelming support of Barack Obama DOES NOT EQUATE to a support of gay "marriage". Yet, for some reason, I don't see gay protesters hiking up the streets of black neighborhoods and protesting in front of black churches. I wonder why!!!
3) We've seen footage of Hollywood celebrities fuming about what went down (Madonna, Sean Penn, Janice Dickinson, etc). But, apparently they have amnesia, as it's slipped their mind that one of their members, who just happens to be the governor of Hollywood's home, TWICE VETOED legislation that would have legalized gay "marriage". Yet, no mobs of homosexuals are coming after the Governator. I wonder why!!!
4) It's also known that 53% of Latino voters approve of Prop. 8. But, I've yet to hear reports of the barrios and razas being flooded with gay activist protesters. Again, I wonder why.
What happened to "equality"? If gay "marriage" supporters are so upset, then they should aim their frustration at ALL of the demographic groups, responsible for the passage of Prop. 8. But, it appears they prefer soft targets, as a white suburban Mormon church is far easier to attack, than black churches, Latino churches, and the govenor of the Golden state.
Machismo based minorities, like blacks and latinos, do not like gays. they cannot be reasoned with in this regard. their cultures are based on masculinity. Its true.So is it okay for Cletus or Billy Bob to say that their culture does not like and is not based on blacks? They cannot be reasoned with in this regard. It's true.
Umm, dunno f you live in california like me, but there are TONS of Mormons in the east bay (and all over). Also, the Moron church donated shitloads of money to the 8 campaign (that doesn't look like separation of church and state to me). can someone honestly tell me how this prop differs from dumbass rednecks saying," negroes can't have equal rights like me."Kinda like a bunch of racist/bigoted black people saying "homos can't have equal rights like me". Hahaha
Anyone who voted for prop 8 is a moron, and does not believe in America. Its pretty simple that equality is completely necessary to the American ideal. How discrimination equates to a better society, i have yet to see.
Umm, dunno f you live in california like me, but there are TONS of Mormons in the east bay (and all over). Also, the Moron church donated shitloads of money to the 8 campaign (that doesn't look like separation of church and state to me). can someone honestly tell me how this prop differs from dumbass rednecks saying," negroes can't have equal rights like me."
Anyone who voted for prop 8 is a moron, and does not believe in America. Its pretty simple that equality is completely necessary to the American ideal. How discrimination equates to a better society, i have yet to see.
No, My home's in Florida, where the marriage amendment (Amend. 2) passed as well. There is no "separation of Church and State" in the U.S. constitution. Furthermore, this isn't about backing a political candidate or party; it's about a moral and social issue, which church members are more than allowed to speak their mind, via the ballot box.
Equal rights means that everyone can participate in the same institutions. This is about the institution of marriage (and how it's defined). That institution in CA is defined, once again, as a union between one man and one woman. Please tell me who is NOT ALLOWED to participate in such. Gays may not want to do so, based on their sexual PREFERENCE; but that doesn't mean they can't.
I beg to differ. Again, this isn't about a party or candidate. Democrats, Republicans whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, rich, middle-class, poor, Christian, non-Christian, young, middle-aged, and old ALL voted on this issue in California (as well as Florida, Arizona, and the other 27 states that have such amendments).
So is it okay for Cletus or Billy Bob to say that their culture does not like and is not based on blacks? They cannot be reasoned with in this regard. It's true.
See what's ironic, especially in a liberal state like CA. I should write a letter to the LA "Liberal" Times and see what happens. Blacks can discriminate against whoever they want with impunity. Makes me sick.
Kinda like a bunch of racist/bigoted black people saying "homos can't have equal rights like me". Hahaha
My argument about hypocritical blacks aside, I think people in CA look at it as a morality issue and they don't agree with it, and don't have to because homosexuality is still seen as a choice by people.
No, My home's in Florida, where the marriage amendment (Amend. 2) passed as well. There is no "separation of Church and State" in the U.S. constitution. Furthermore, this isn't about backing a political candidate or party; it's about a moral and social issue, which church members are more than allowed to speak their mind, via the ballot box.
Equal rights means that everyone can participate in the same institutions. This is about the institution of marriage (and how it's defined). That institution in CA is defined, once again, as a union between one man and one woman. Please tell me who is NOT ALLOWED to participate in such. Gays may not want to do so, based on their sexual PREFERENCE; but that doesn't mean they can't.
I beg to differ. Again, this isn't about a party or candidate. Democrats, Republicans whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, rich, middle-class, poor, Christian, non-Christian, young, middle-aged, and old ALL voted on this issue in California (as well as Florida, Arizona, and the other 27 states that have such amendments).
?
Correction: Democrats, Republicans whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, rich, middle-class, poor, Christian, non-Christian, young, middle-aged, and old ALL voted on this issue in California (as DID THE CITIZENS of Florida, Arizona, and the other 27 states that have such amendments, voted on this issue).
Sexual PREFERENCE has no bearing here. i do not see why anyone would PREFER to be discriminatd against. If you think homosexuality is a choice, chances are you are an idiot and not very educated. The fact of this is that educated (yeah, we're smarter than you, we don't believe in god, and we're right) people all agree that homosexuality is a byproduct of evolution. Sexual ORIENTATION (that which you are born with) is being discriminated against. Thats why I'm marching in Sacramento tomorrow. the right that my girlfriend and I have to marry should not be different from anyone else. What is next, people saying that marriage is only between a christian man and woman? If the religious right gets their way, this isnt far off (like stem cell research being constricted).
I'm only aware of ~ 3 or 4
what are you referring to?
Sexual PREFERENCE has no bearing here. i do not see why anyone would PREFER to be discriminatd against. If you think homosexuality is a choice, chances are you are an idiot and not very educated. The fact of this is that educated (yeah, we're smarter than you, we don't believe in god, and we're right) people all agree that homosexuality is a byproduct of evolution. Sexual ORIENTATION (that which you are born with) is being discriminated against. Thats why I'm marching in Sacramento tomorrow. the right that my girlfriend and I have to marry should not be different from anyone else. What is next, people saying that marriage is only between a christian man and woman? If the religious right gets their way, this isnt far off (like stem cell research being constricted).Are you cool with 3o year olds marrying 12 year old boys or girls? Or animals (Clerks 2 ;D)?
Whether you're allegedly smarter than those with whom you disagree is subject to debate. You mentioned you and your girlfriend. You're a man; she's a woman. That meets the requirements of the marriage law. You could be as gay as Elton John; it doesn't matter. It certainly doesn't matter for women, as a number of "lesbians" revert to being with men. If they bring one to the church/or the courthouse, they can get hitched.
Furthermore, why are you complaining about the "religious right". Last time I checked, California was the LAST place where the "religious right" was much of a force. How many DEMOCRATS (hardly members of that demographic) voted for Prop. 8, again?
Are you cool with 3o year olds marrying 12 year old boys or girls? Or animals (Clerks 2 ;D)?
Traps, while you are pointing at the religious right you might as well swing that judgemental pendulum to the religious left of BLACK people who turned out to deny the people with a preference for same sex, the right to vote.
I said above that blacks and latinos are massively machismo based cultures (like most uneducated people/cultures... hence the "billybob the redneck" comment made by someone else above), and don't agree with homosexuality because they feel threatened by it. I don't particularly care for many black people, as the greatly choose to remain uneducated and blame someone else for their problems.I respect your position but you do see the contradictions that exist because of that right? They engage in the same hatred they preach against. I don't particularly care about gay rights but find it funny coming from black people, and nobody talks about it in the media.
as for NAMBLA and beastiality, no... i don't want marriage to be made a mockery of, or for it to suit the needs of pedophiles. Someone who knows (cuz i don't), do you have to be 18 to be married?
I respect your position but you do see the contradictions that exist because of that right? They engage in the same hatred they preach against. I don't particularly care about gay rights but find it funny coming from black people, and nobody talks about it in the media.
I think prop 8 is looked at by some as a slippery slope of what will be allowed in marriage.
Marriage age http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
Are you cool with 3o year olds marrying 12 year old boys or girls? Or animals (Clerks 2 ;D)?
Traps, while you are pointing at the religious right you might as well swing that judgemental pendulum to the religious left of BLACK people who turned out to deny the people with a preference for same sex, the right to vote.
Ironically enough, in the first state that legalized gay "marriage" (Massachusettes), girls can get married at age 12.
They had the right to vote. It's just that the "Yes" votes outnumbered the "No" votes on Prop. 8. But, that goes to what I said earlier.
I don't see masses of gay protesters, headed to South Central LA, or other black neighborhoods, or to the razas and suburbs, loaded with Latino voters. No Baptist, Pentecostal, or Lutheran churches are being vandalized by angry mobs of gays and lesbians.
Umm, how many lesbians go back to men? That sounds like prop 8 propoganda to me. I actually know of a few men who got married, had kids and then ended up gay and with a long time partner. Hmm... shit, he got married. The RELIGIOUS RIGHT came in and flooded california with 50 million worth of false information (at least the mormon chruch did, or 40 million, some ridiculous number).
And how can you really be this into the "institution of marriage" considering you can get hitched while intoxicated in vegas for 200 bux with the correct paper work. Marriage has an over 50% divorce rate, and the average marriage lasts something like less that five years these days. that doesn't sound like much on an institution. It sounds like something every person has a right to do.
They also weren't the ones pumping in massive amounts of money into the Yes on 8 campaign. black and latino people don't have money, you should know better ;)
And blacks and latinos, due to their ignorance and lack of education, are irrational and violent (not racist, horrible truth). I never saw one black or latino car driving around with Yes on 8 gear on them, but i saw a shitload of fat, white housewives with those stupid cartoon family stickers and a jesus fish on their car with a big yes on 8 sign in their read window.
How cute!! When you can't come up with a valid argument, you fall on the tried (or should I say "tired") spiel, of "we're smart; they're stupid".
It doesn't matter who supposedly pumped massive amounts of money into the campaign (as about $40 million went into BOTH sides), or who had stickers and fishes on their cars, it's the blacks and Latinos that pushed Prop. 8 over the top.
Now, what was that you were saying about ignorance and hate, again? ::)
If it's so bad, why are you so upset about Prop. 8 passing? Perhaps, people are concerned about marriage being deteriorated FURTHER, who knows.
But, citing divorce rates doesn't help to make your point. Divorce is rampant, partially due to the concept of "no-fault" divorces. And, I agree with you about the relative ease in which marriage can be entered. But, what can be done about that? Do you propose mandatory marriage counseling? Some churches have that (i.e. they won't marry a couple, unless they undergo marriage counseling at their church). But, that can easily be circumvented.
And, if marriage counseling had to be a requirement, you might still complain, if the lion's share of that were done in churches. After all, what would be the principles discussed in marriage counseling, and what would be the divide between that done at a church and that done somewhere else?
Umm, dunno f you live in california like me, but there are TONS of Mormons in the east bay (and all over). Also, the Moron church donated shitloads of money to the 8 campaign (that doesn't look like separation of church and state to me). can someone honestly tell me how this prop differs from dumbass rednecks saying," negroes can't have equal rights like me."
Anyone who voted for prop 8 is a moron, and does not believe in America. Its pretty simple that equality is completely necessary to the American ideal. How discrimination equates to a better society, i have yet to see.
absolutely, they put in like 80 million I heard....They're tax exempt status as a church should be investigated...
Sad to see a church choose to fund the taking of people's rights, instead of spending that money on helping people and doing actual good.
I said above that blacks and latinos are massively machismo based cultures (like most uneducated people/cultures... hence the "billybob the redneck" comment made by someone else above), and don't agree with homosexuality because they feel threatened by it. I don't particularly care for many black people, as the greatly choose to remain uneducated and blame someone else for their problems.
as for NAMBLA and beastiality, no... i don't want marriage to be made a mockery of, or for it to suit the needs of pedophiles. Someone who knows (cuz i don't), do you have to be 18 to be married?
They also weren't the ones pumping in massive amounts of money into the Yes on 8 campaign. black and latino people don't have money, you should know better ;)
And blacks and latinos, due to their ignorance and lack of education, are irrational and violent (not racist, horrible truth). I never saw one black or latino car driving around with Yes on 8 gear on them, but i saw a shitload of fat, white housewives with those stupid cartoon family stickers and a jesus fish on their car with a big yes on 8 sign in their read window.
I am not ignorant or hateful, i am informed and honest. blacks and latinos have low voter registratiion and turnout, and did not have that great of an impact on this decision. Its not my fault that heavily populated black and latino areas have high rates of violent crime. I call'am as i see'em.
TrapsMcLats,
Ironically, you come off as ignorant, uneducated, hateful and racist. I do not like your racist stereotypical, negative generalization of Blacks and Latinos.
I am not ignorant or hateful, i am informed and honest. blacks and latinos have low voter registratiion and turnout, and did not have that great of an impact on this decision. Its not my fault that heavily populated black and latino areas have high rates of violent crime. I call'am as i see'em.
People need to stop pretending blacks and Mormons are the only reason things went the way they did.
People need to stop pretending blacks and Mormons are the only reason things went the way they did.
That's funny. From the number shown on the news networks:
49% of White voters approved Prop. 8
49% of Asian voters did as well
53% of Latino voters gave it the nod.
70% of Black voters went for Prop. 8.
It's not my fault that gay/bisexual men have the highest rate of HIV/AIDS, either (or that the average life span of gays and lesbians is in the mid 40s). But that has nothing to do with the voters who approve Prop. 8, just as the crime rates of black and latino areas.
As I said, this covers the spectrum of race, gender, political affiliation, religious beliefs, and economic brackets.
But, once again, the blacks and Latino churches and neighborhoods go conspicuously unprotested. And, I don't see anyone storming Arnold's house, either.
Now that I think about it, I've yet to see any GetBig folk (who support gay "marriage") protest the great Arnold Schwarzenegger for vetoing that gay "marriage" bill TWICE.
The mormons used classic fear tactics to get people thinking that schools would start teaching homosexuality. I mean, fuck fucks sake, a person in the local paper wrote in today talking about Obama being an Arab terrorist. People are dumb as shit and easily influenced. Those commercials have a huge impact. the between the lines story is yes, people are still not all that cool with homosexuality. But the bottom line is that no one should be denied these basic rights. Melissa Ethridge had a great quote yesterday, and i'm paraphrasing "if i'm not going to be treated like a full citizen of california, i'm not going to pay the 500k i do in taxes every year. i could do better things with that money." that actually makes sense to me. I mean, why should she pay into a system that doesn't treat her as an equal?
No one being denied any basic rights. This is about defining marriage. Name one gay or lesbian who can't get married, if he/she follows the criteria, established in Prop. 8.
Furthermore, what stopped Ethridge (or any other Hollywood heavyweight) from starting an initiative of their own, to define marriage as "a union of any two people", instead of "a union between one man and one woman"? Apparently, it's never that important to them, UNTIL THEIR OPPONENTS put their own amendment on the ballot.
I should write a letter to the LA "Liberal" Times and see what happens.
But their overall voter turnout (low) did not impact the election that much. They have low voter rates. The crime rates were referenced as why i wouldn't want to go into a ghetto to protest. You called us (no on 8 people) cowards and I gave you straight up info as to why i would stay away from those areas.
All churches are after is money and power, that is why they are so threatened by education and tolerance, it could potentially dethrone them. They have faith, which is belief without reason. We have the scientific method, which yields progress and belief within reason.
Churches are hardly threatened by education, or did you forget that some of the colleges in this country were founded by churches and by Christians (i.e. Harvard, Princeton, etc.).
Once again, you're complaining about ignorance, hatred, and intolerance. Yet, you come up with tirades like this, regarding people with whom you disagree.
That makes you no better than the people you decry.
The mormons used classic fear tactics to get people thinking that schools would start teaching homosexuality. I mean, fuck fucks sake, a person in the local paper wrote in today talking about Obama being an Arab terrorist. People are dumb as shit and easily influenced. Those commercials have a huge impact. the between the lines story is yes, people are still not all that cool with homosexuality. But the bottom line is that no one should be denied these basic rights. Melissa Ethridge had a great quote yesterday, and i'm paraphrasing "if i'm not going to be treated like a full citizen of california, i'm not going to pay the 500k i do in taxes every year. i could do better things with that money." that actually makes sense to me. I mean, why should she pay into a system that doesn't treat her as an equal?
I believe in equality, i'm not trying to deny christians their right to go to church.
Here's your arguement:
My arguement is that if the state provides a document of marriage to any man and woman, they have to provide it for a man and man. That is equality. Who wants to get unioned?
So, when women couldn't vote, that wasn't them being denied rights? They just hadn't done enough about it yet? yeah... intelligent arguement.
The mormons used classic fear tactics to get people thinking that schools would start teaching homosexuality. I mean, fuck fucks sake, a person in the local paper wrote in today talking about Obama being an Arab terrorist. People are dumb as shit and easily influenced. Those commercials have a huge impact. the between the lines story is yes, people are still not all that cool with homosexuality. But the bottom line is that no one should be denied these basic rights. Melissa Ethridge had a great quote yesterday, and i'm paraphrasing "if i'm not going to be treated like a full citizen of california, i'm not going to pay the 500k i do in taxes every year. i could do better things with that money." that actually makes sense to me. I mean, why should she pay into a system that doesn't treat her as an equal?
That's funny, because one of the pre-school employees felt the need to inform my daughter about gay marriage.
If gay marriage becomes the norm how can it not end up being taught in school? Stop bullshitting us because we all know someone will argue that teaching about gay marriage in school about it will decrease prejudice and make things less stressful for the children of gay couples.
Maybe, if you cease with the sarcasm and insults, you'll be able to read what I actually posted..
Once again, there was NOTHING stopping gay "marriage" supporters from starting initatives OF THEIR OWN, attempting to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures, and trying to get an amendment, defining marriage as "a union of any two people" on the ballot.
The only time they start voting about this issue is when their opponents have their own amendment, such as Prop. 8, to keep (or, in this case, re-establish) the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
It's not my fault that gay/bisexual men have the highest rate of HIV/AIDS, either (or that the average life span of gays and lesbians is in the mid 40s).
Allowing gay marriage makes the US a laughingstock of the world.
Ironically enough, in the first state that legalized gay "marriage" (Massachusettes), girls can get married at age 12.
liar (http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm)
stop reading hateful propaganda sites already. that gays only live to 40 comes from Paul Cameron, who has done so much bogus research that the religious right has even stopped using him. His study compared obituaries in the NY Times in the 1980s and found that most of the obits of gays were of young people while most of the obits of straights were of old. the problem with such a study: most people don't get obits in the newspaper, and gays in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s are less likely to be openly gay.
It won't matter what people teach your daughter, because she either will feel biochemical reactions when a man touches her hand or she'll feel that way when a woman touches her hand. People are born that way. you can't teach me to get a boner when a dude bends over in front of me I never had to be taught to get a boner when a girl with a nice ass bent over in front of me.
.
well, it had been voted on by judges to make it legal... you do remember that don't you?
Cameron's studies weren't the only one that had those findings, Tim.
From the International Journal of Epidemiology - Modelling the Impact of of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men:
OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men. METHODS: Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age 20 years. For each scenario, non-HIV deaths were distributed according to the assumed proportion of the total population (3%, 6% or 9%) but 95% of HIV deaths were distributed to gay and bisexual men as this is the proportion of AIDS cases in gay and bisexual men in this centre. The main outcome measures of interest were age-specific patterns of death, life expectancy and life expectancy lost due to HIV/AIDS at exact age 20 years, and the probability of living from age 20 to 65 years.
RESULTS: Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16,219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the 9% scenario. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%.
CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657 (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657)
See also "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" - Dr. John Diggs
http://corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf (http://corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf)
But, I guess you'll charge that this is a "hateful propganda site", too. ::)
We voted in 2000, it was disputed, but the decision was upheld. Many people don't like decision in 2008, with similar percentages to those with Prop 8, but they accepted it and aren't challenging it. What makes Prop 8 or the other votes any different? Why can a court overrule the will of the people in some cases but not others?
that's the whole reason we have courts.That's basically what we do now in elections, but I know what you are saying. My point is that if all people want to do is define marriage, what's the big deal? Gays basically have the same rights under California state law (or federal law? I forget which) with their civil unions, what rights are being denied? If you have the same rights as married people but just not the title then it's more about forcing people to accept something they don't want than having equal protection.
If not, we'd just run our society by mob rule and vigilante justice and that would be called the "will of the people"
If it were left up to the will of the people we'd still have segregation
But, I guess you'll charge that this is a "hateful propganda site", too. ::)
The notion of a minimum age of 14 for boys and 12 for girls comes from an 1854 case,
that's the whole reason we have courts.I've never heard elections refered to as "mob rule" or "vigilante justice", LOL.
If not, we'd just run our society by mob rule and vigilante justice and that would be called the "will of the people"
If it were left up to the will of the people we'd still have segregation
Gays basically have the same rights under California state law (or federal law? I forget which) with their civil unions, what rights are being denied?
Schools will be involved and people don't want their kids learning that shit.
now, once again, the people have overturned it, the majority of voters said gay marraige is unacceptable here.
and if the ballot initiative process had existed in the 1950s and 1960s, whites would still not be allowed to marry non-whites, and we'd still have separate but equal schools.Time to move on, why not find a worthy cause, like a cure for cancer, or saving a redwood, now there's something everyone can appreciate.
Constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.
Time to move on, why not find a worthy cause, like a cure for cancer, or saving a redwood, now there's something everyone can appreciate.
what's a little second class citizenship among friends?LOLOl, you're not being denied anything that will stop your quality of life.
I've never heard elections refered to as "mob rule" or "vigilante justice", LOL.
It's defiantely a mafority rule, and that's what we have here with Prop 8.
The people, the population of CA, in 2000 turned down the gay marraige deal, the gays whined and bitched and moaned until some judge was sick of hearing their shit and finally caved in under their pressure (much like a little kid pestering mommy for a piece of candy, "OK junior, just STFU already ::) ), now, once again, the people have overturned it, the majority of voters said gay marraige is unacceptable here.
Maybe it's time for the gays to move to a state that has a population of voters that vote in those types of law.
we have elections to choose people to run our government and make the decisions that we're talking about.
As of now, the genius of the people have created an ammendment which directly contradicts the state constitution (as determined by the state supreme court).
If we let the majority rule in these types of issues we'd probably still have slavery (I'm sure people in the south were pretty happy with that arrangement) much less segregation.
what's a little second class citizenship among friends?
LOLOl, you're not being denied anything that will stop your quality of life.
For what it is worth Tim, I think it sucks.
I am more perturbed by whatever state [I forget] banning gays and singles from adopting.
Brilliant, 1/2 million kids need adopting, sitting around stuck in group homes with no one to love them, getting foster and adoptive parents is already hard as hell - so great choice to make it even harder. ::)
That would be Arkansas
I believe it does not allow any unmarried couple from adopting
Evangelicals are calling that a victory
one of my oldest friends was adopted by a single woman (who happend to be a gay) when he was 4 years old (and very unlikely to have been adopted). He grew up in a great home in a very affluent area, had a good education, etc.... His life is pretty good but it could have turned out very differently
That would be Arkansas
I believe it does not allow any unmarried couple from adopting
Evangelicals are calling that a victory
one of my oldest friends was adopted by a single woman (who happend to be a gay) when he was 4 years old (and very unlikely to have been adopted). He grew up in a great home in a very affluent area, had a good education, etc.... His life is pretty good but it could have turned out very differently
Yes, thanks, Arkansas.Most religious people are hypocrits.
So stupid - as I've said before I am an adoptive parent [well kinda, never adopted legally but raised her] and did it technically "single" for most years. She had her own room in a pretty nice house with all the material trappings, has traveled to like 15 countries, went to private school, is in college now and had nothing under 10 people at all her ballet shows, sports days etc as my family is like that - we roll deep and support each other - she is the light of my parents life.
I am unsure why a lifestyle like that is inferior to being shoved in a childrens home with 20 other kids, missing out of many things in life then being tossed out when she is 18 to fend for herself with zero support.
Half a million kids need homes, and they make a rule knocking out even more potential parents. Disgusting. I'm a religious person, however unlike what some "christians" I don't go around screaming bible verses while doing things like this - I prefer to walk the walk. It is abhorent what some of these "evangelicals" do and support in the name of God.
Most religious people are hypocrits.
Nothing happens when you die!
;D
and if the ballot initiative process had existed in the 1950s and 1960s, whites would still not be allowed to marry non-whites, and we'd still have separate but equal schools.
Constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.
Most religious people are hypocrits.
The issue is the California constitution. In May, the CA court ruled that Prop. 22 (the marriage law from 2000) was unconstitutional, based on how they interpreted the state constitution at that time.
Prop. 8 is a constitutional amendment, which is why it trumps the courts ruling. It spells out, in no uncertain terms, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
The people have a right to modify their state’s constitution. And, as long as it does NOT run afoul of the federal Constitution, such a modification is valid. Neither CA’s marriage amendment nor those of the other 29 states clash with the federal Constitution.
we have elections to choose people to run our government and make the decisions that we're talking about.
As of now, the genius of the people have created an ammendment which directly contradicts the state constitution (as determined by the state supreme court).
If we let the majority rule in these types of issues we'd probably still have slavery (I'm sure people in the south were pretty happy with that arrangement) much less segregation.
do you agree that had the ballot initiative process existed in the 1950s and 1960s, whites would still not be allowed to marry non-whites, and we'd still have separate but equal schools? should the will of the majority always prevail?
A) According to California law, minor changes can be made with the ballot initiative with a 50% + 1 vote. Core changes require 2/3rd vote by the legislature and then 2/3rds vote by the people. Is this a minor change or a core change? Making an exception to the equal protection clause seems to be a core change.
B) there are now two laws/rulings in the California constitution that seem to conflict: 1) gays must be treated equal when it comes to marriage, 2) gays cannot be given marriage licenses. the only way to meet both laws is to not give marriage licenses to anyone
A lot has been made on the news of the protests by gay activists and their supporters, seething over the passing of Prop. 8, which once again defines marriage as union between a man and a woman.
Those protests have targeted a Mormon church there. There have been fights, vandalism, and intimidation.
But, here's the rub:
1) There ain't that many Mormons in California.
2) It's been stated long and loudly, that black voters (to the tune of 70%) voted for Prop. 8. And black voters have made it no secret that their overwhelming support of Barack Obama DOES NOT EQUATE to a support of gay "marriage". Yet, for some reason, I don't see gay protesters hiking up the streets of black neighborhoods and protesting in front of black churches. I wonder why!!!
3) We've seen footage of Hollywood celebrities fuming about what went down (Madonna, Sean Penn, Janice Dickinson, etc). But, apparently they have amnesia, as it's slipped their mind that one of their members, who just happens to be the governor of Hollywood's home, TWICE VETOED legislation that would have legalized gay "marriage". Yet, no mobs of homosexuals are coming after the Governator. I wonder why!!!
4) It's also known that 53% of Latino voters approve of Prop. 8. But, I've yet to hear reports of the barrios and razas being flooded with gay activist protesters. Again, I wonder why.
What happened to "equality"? If gay "marriage" supporters are so upset, then they should aim their frustration at ALL of the demographic groups, responsible for the passage of Prop. 8. But, it appears they prefer soft targets, as a white suburban Mormon church is far easier to attack, than black churches, Latino churches, and the govenor of the Golden state.
Umm, how many lesbians go back to men? That sounds like prop 8 propoganda to me. I actually know of a few men who got married, had kids and then ended up gay and with a long time partner. Hmm... shit, he got married. The RELIGIOUS RIGHT came in and flooded california with 50 million worth of false information (at least the mormon chruch did, or 40 million, some ridiculous number).
And how can you really be this into the "institution of marriage" considering you can get hitched while intoxicated in vegas for 200 bux with the correct paper work. Marriage has an over 50% divorce rate, and the average marriage lasts something like less that five years these days. that doesn't sound like much on an institution. It sounds like something every person has a right to do.
You must now deal with the fact that Obama's GOTV efforts to minorities are what got gay marriage banned in California.
I laughed my ass off when I heard about this.
I sincerey doubt that the low voter turnout minorities had that large of an impact on the outcome. it didn't help granted, but i doubt that was the death blow.
Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How does a relationship btn consenting adults violate any law or pervert the above ideals of our country?
It doesn't.
Leave these fucking people alone. Even Obama's wrong on this topic.
Yeah, I think voting againest it is uncool, but all one has to do is work the numbers the 10% voting 70% strong didn't swing it, even with all them out would still have passed. Simple maths.
Plus they weren't the ones who poured 50 million in to help it along.
I agree also with your 2nd point, can't stop it. Why people don't worry about their own moral decline and not others I don't know. You got divorced folks, people who had babies out of wedlock stressing about gay marriage. Churches letting people starve to death worldwide, people in USA living under the poverty line while they funded taking away people's rights. Nice ::)
Yeah, I think voting againest it is uncool, but all one has to do is work the numbers the 10% voting 70% strong didn't swing it, even with all them out would still have passed. Simple maths.
Plus they weren't the ones who poured 50 million in to help it along.
I agree also with your 2nd point, can't stop it. Why people don't worry about their own moral decline and not others I don't know. You got divorced folks, people who had babies out of wedlock stressing about gay marriage. Churches letting people starve to death worldwide, people in USA living under the poverty line while they funded taking away people's rights. Nice ::)
You mean moral decline, like vandalizing public property, stealing, and assault (i.e. what protesters of Prop. 8 have been doing before and since the amendment passed)?
Plus, churches have helped and continue to help the poor and needy, both here and elsewhere. It's called missionary work. Contrary to what you might think, you can do all of that AND keep the traditional definition of marriage, as a union between a man and a woman. Where you got the idea that this amendment was done, at the expense of charity work, I'd love to know.
And, it goes back to what I said earlier. These protesters are COWARDS. They don't want to go head up with black churches or Latino churches in their respective neighborhoods. I doubt they'd even confront the lion's share of white voters who pulled for Prop. 8.
My favorite line is "well, if we let this happen, whats next, men and animals getting married? marrying five people to each other?" Its the death rattle of a dying thought process and way of life. And it is no different than the people who tried to keep blacks out of schools back in the 50's. You either provide everyone with the same basic rights or you don't. This isn't that complicated. Once we make sure religion has no place in the world except in people's private lives, the world will be a much better place.
You mean moral decline, like vandalizing public property, stealing, and assault (i.e. what protesters of Prop. 8 have been doing before and since the amendment passed)?
Plus, churches have helped and continue to help the poor and needy, both here and elsewhere. It's called missionary work. Contrary to what you might think, you can do all of that AND keep the traditional definition of marriage, as a union between a man and a woman. Where you got the idea that this amendment was done, at the expense of charity work, I'd love to know.
Umm, missionary work= we'll help you if, and only if, you cease your heathen ways and convert to our religion.
yeah, great stuff.
Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How does a relationship btn consenting adults violate any law or pervert the above ideals of our country?
It doesn't.
Leave these fucking people alone. Even Obama's wrong on this topic.
You mean moral decline, like vandalizing public property, stealing, and assault (i.e. what protesters of Prop. 8 have been doing before and since the amendment passed)?
The fact that whites couldn't marry non-whites (but different non-whites could intermarry each other, which flew in the face of the so-called Racial Purity Act) showed that the issue wasn't purity of race but white supremacy, which ran AFOUL of the U.S. constitution.
Good post.
I got the idea it was done at the expense of charity work, as they spent millions on it that could have been used for charity work. Simple deduction.
My issue with it all is hypocrasy. There are divorced people, people who had kids out of wedlock talking about 'sanctity of marriage". LOL. Whats the divorce rate now - 50% or so. Marriage lost its sanctity along time ago. People drop babies out of wedlock as a rule now.
I personally am socially conservative and live my life like so most times, but believe battles should be picked wisely. People starving to death, kids homeless and all sorts - but the church chose to spend millions on restricting rights. :-\
Some missionaries do great work, others are morons. I just tossed some from my door earlier actually.
My favorite line is "well, if we let this happen, whats next, men and animals getting married? marrying five people to each other?" Its the death rattle of a dying thought process and way of life. And it is no different than the people who tried to keep blacks out of schools back in the 50's. You either provide everyone with the same basic rights or you don't. This isn't that complicated. Once we make sure religion has no place in the world except in people's private lives, the world will be a much better place.
And, the reason for that is that our society has CONTINUED to belittle marriage and other values. Furthermore, hypocrisy works both ways. Citing divorce rates and out-of-wedlock babies to show a loss of value about marriage on one hand, while complaining about gays, not being able to re-define the issue on the other sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
Plus, my guess is that this particular church has humanitarian funds and programs, which are used to help the less fortunate.
Why don't those gay "marriage" protestors start feeding some hungry and clothing the naked, instead of acting a fool and vandalizing churches and other private property? I haven't heard you complain about the millions of dollars that Prop. 8 opponents got for their campaign.
98% of the public should not have to cave in to the whims of 2%. If you feel so strongly about another person and cant get legally married, you can co-mingle your assets, make that person your POA, name that person your health care proxy, leave everything in your will to that person, buy things jointly, and act as if you are a married couple.
Marriage is meant so that the society can pro-create and reproduce. That requires a male and a female, whether it be humans, animals, birds, dogs, cats, or otherwise.
Being gay is against natures' design to survive. If everyone were to be gay, the human species and every other species would cease to exist.
These are the facts, deal with it.
Marriage is meant so that the society can pro-create and reproduce. That requires a male and a female, whether it be humans, animals, birds, dogs, cats, or otherwise.
Being gay is against natures' design to survive. If everyone were to be gay, the human species and every other species would cease to exist.
You mean moral decline, like vandalizing public property, stealing, and assault (i.e. what protesters of Prop. 8 have been doing before and since the amendment passed)?
Plus, churches have helped and continue to help the poor and needy, both here and elsewhere. It's called missionary work. Contrary to what you might think, you can do all of that AND keep the traditional definition of marriage, as a union between a man and a woman. Where you got the idea that this amendment was done, at the expense of charity work, I'd love to know.
And, it goes back to what I said earlier. These protesters are COWARDS. They don't want to go head up with black churches or Latino churches in their respective neighborhoods. I doubt they'd even confront the lion's share of white voters who pulled for Prop. 8.
Thank you--you're right... picketing and harrassing the Mormon church is relatively safe (i.e. pretty weenie) because, to put it bluntly, the protesters are pretty much guaranteed not to get their asses kicked like they might if they went up against other certain ahhh, more "militant" demographics who also voted in favor of Prop 8.
Trust me--the Mormon church has plenty of funds at their disposal (that's putting it mildly) and $20 mil is a drop in the bucket, although obviously not an insignificant amount. But to imply that some poor needy person's needs went unmet when they otherwise would have, is pretty lame and has no basis in reality. The church has a welfare program which is second to none, and I can also say as a former missionary (I did a stint in Holland many years ago) the missionaries do acts of service for anyone and everyone in their community, certainly not just for card-carrying Mormons.
And I still maintain--changing the definition of a term that has meant the same thing for thousands of years, opens up all sorts of legal loopholes and once it's done it will never be un-done. Opponents can laugh and mock and make light of it but overturning this amendment would be another step towards the decline of western civilization. Honestly at this rate I see history repeating itself vis-a-vis the fall of the Roman Empire. I doubt it will be in our lifetimes but we're certainly on our way. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a wacky right-leaning conservative Christian.
But it didn't. California Supreme Court overturned their miscegenation law in 1948. The US Supreme Court did not do the same until 1967.
so if the ballot initiative had existed in the 1950s, the California voters would have most certainly reinstated the law. and according to you, that would have been ok, because the will of the majority takes precedent over the rights of minorities.
That miscegenation law ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
And I still maintain--changing the definition of a term that has meant the same thing for thousands of years,
how did it run afoul of the US Constitution? because the CA SC said it did? Even if the US SC said it didn't for another 19 years? and how is that different than now?
that's the thing, the definition of marriage has not meant the same thing for thousands of years. it use to include polygamy, still does in some parts of the world. marriages were business arrangements made by the parents, still are in some parts of the world. in Europe a thousand years ago, marriages were arranged by serfdom kings and bishops too.
your definition of marriage is only a few hundred years old.
I thought it was older than that.
Deuteronomy 17:14-19 (New International Version)
The King
14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
1 Timothy 3:2
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
religion has no place in civilized, modern political discussion. God doesn't exist.
Why did they not protest like this and file lawsuits before election day? I mean, they knew it was going to be on the ballot, right?
Well, probably because they were confident that Prop. 8 would be defeated by a land slide. But it wasn't. It back fired on them.
If Prop. 8 had been defeated on election day, they would have been more than okay that it was on the ballot.
Sore losers.
Haha, religious nut alert!
Everyone is not going to be gay, you can't be gay without a biochemical reaction that makes you become sexually aroused or stimulated by a member of the same sex. Marriage, or being married, is a legally binding document provided by the state... some people choose to involve religion, and that is their own choice. You cannot provide that for some and not for others. That is the definition of discrimination. What about that do you not understand? I know many married people without children. My girlfriend and I plan on getting married and never having kids. Should we be denied the right to marry because we don't plan on procreating? Of course not. Take religion and the bible out of the equation and your arguements have no basis. You are the idiot letting a made up book full of made up stories define your social thinking. I am judging the world scientificaly and rationaly with no emphasis on what a made up god decreed as right and wrong.
Marriage brings happiness? ??? ;DI'm beginning to wonder that myself. All the nagging you want....who cares if it comes from a skirt or a pair of jeans...nagging is fucking nagging.
I'm beginning to wonder that myself. All the nagging you want....who cares if it comes from a skirt or a pair of jeans...nagging is fucking nagging.
What the hell was I thinking defending this institution?
You're not going to wear that, are you? You're not goint to eat, drink or smoke that, are you? What football game?.....my parents are coming over to help decorate the house. Turn off those MMA fights....blood sickens me. How can you lift weights when there's laundry to hang?
Speaking of hanging....this just might be the last post from Ol' Decker.
But that is not what timfogarty and I were discussing. We were discussing the age of the definition of traditional marriage.
What the hell was I thinking defending this institution?
Really? Why?Thanks. I'm just kidding. I'm married and the nagging was of the scales this past weekend.
You have some of the best posts on this site and if nothing else, it's fun to see the right wingers get so riled up
I'm beginning to wonder that myself. All the nagging you want....who cares if it comes from a skirt or a pair of jeans...nagging is fucking nagging.
What the hell was I thinking defending this institution?
You're not going to wear that, are you? You're not goint to eat, drink or smoke that, are you? What football game?.....my parents are coming over to help decorate the house. Turn off those MMA fights....blood sickens me. How can you lift weights when there's laundry to hang?
Speaking of hanging....this just might be the last post from Ol' Decker.
I'm not going anywhere soon. It's just that nagging in the marriage might make me hang myself...at least the thought of it is somewhat comforting.
LOL. ;D
I like your posts Decker, even if you disagree with me most of the time. Hope you stick around! :)
I'm not going anywhere soon. It's just that nagging in the marriage might make me hang myself...at least the thought of it is somewhat comforting.
It really is the little things that help you get through the day.
When I do leave GB, it'll be my typical style...slinking away without the brazen sound and fury of an asinine announcement.
Like death, it'll just happen.
I have not stepped in a church or temple in probably 10 years.
And besides--why is it okay for liberal organizations to throw their money behind a cause, but when a conservative organization like the Mormon church does it, people are yelling and screaming and marching in the streets?
Timfogarty this is kind of off topic, but what do you think about marriage being a contractual agreement?
For instance is one spouse cheats on the other then by law that should be a breach of contract?
Timfogarty this is kind of off topic, but what do you think about marriage being a contractual agreement?You think I can get a fidelity clause in my prenup? What about a paternity clause? ;D
For instance is one spouse cheats on the other then by law that should be a breach of contract?
You think I can get a fidelity clause in my prenup? What about a paternity clause? ;D
for one, in exchange for their tax exempt status, churches aren't suppose to make political endorsements. let them pay property and corporate taxes, just as both liberal and conservative political organizations do, then they can endorse who/what ever they want.
and if you had been following this prior to the election, you probably would have heard that the Mormon church was threatening businesses who donated to the No on 8 campaign with boycotts. and even worse, threatening members with expulsion.
I guess you would include in that Obama's church run by Rev. Wright????? Correct?????
for one, in exchange for their tax exempt status, churches aren't suppose to make political endorsements. let them pay property and corporate taxes, just as both liberal and conservative political organizations do, then they can endorse who/what ever they want.
and if you had been following this prior to the election, you probably would have heard that the Mormon church was threatening businesses who donated to the No on 8 campaign with boycotts. and even worse, threatening members with expulsion.
The latest legal strategy
http://www.zimbio.com/Gloria+Allred/articles/4/Gloria+Allred+statement+Prop+8+lawsuit
Last night, opponents sought to reverse that decision with Proposition 8 in which they once again sought to restrict legal marriage to a man and a woman. That Proposition appears to have passed by a narrow margin.
As a result, today we will file a writ with the California Supreme Court on behalf of Robin Tyler and her spouse, Diane Olson, challenging its constitutionality on several grounds. In our case in May, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Equal protection clause in our California Constitution protects the rights of lesbians and gays to marry the person of their choice and the court, for the first time, recognized homosexuality as a "suspect classification" under the equal protection clause of our state constitution, thereby requiring a strict scrutiny test which test was not and cannot be met (the court so held) in marriages limited to a man and a woman. Prop 8, if it passes, conflicts with the equal protection clause. If marriage is now limited to straight couples and excludes gay couples then it is inconsistent and in conflict with the equal protection clause. We will argue to the court that Prop 8 is a disguised revision to the constitution which cannot be imposed by the ordinary amendment process, which only requires a simple majority. We believe that then the court must hold that California may not issue marriage licenses to non-gay couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause as straight couples would have more rights by being allowed to marry than gay couples.
If Prop 8 had said that the California constitution was amended to limit marriage to people of the same race only, would that be constitutional under our state constitution? Of course not as it would violate the equal protection clause and the seminal case of Perez v. Sharp which the Supreme court decided sixty years ago.
We will also argue that Prop 8 improperly revises the Supreme Court’s recent opinion defining the constitutional fundamental right of marriage The state constitution provides that revisions to the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a state constitutional convention, and a proposition requiring only 50% is not available to the electorate to accomplish the revision to our equal protection clause.
Lastly, the constitutional requirement of separation of powers, we will argue, does not permit the use of the Proposition format to remove and /or circumvent the judiciary in determining the interpretation of what is or is not a fundamental liberty right and who is and who is not protected by the equal protection clause.
Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up
The governor expresses hope that Proposition 8 would be overturned as protesters continued to march outside churches across California.
By Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza
November 10, 2008
Reporting from Sacramento and Lake Forest -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already wed would not see their marriages nullified by the initiative.
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview Sunday on CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
complete article at LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4939340.story)
They tried that argument, six months ago, and the CA court dismissed it.
If this amendment were so “unconstitutional”, the CA court should have taken care of this BEFORE it ever got to the ballot. It didn’t and neither did the state Attorney General. Instead, they let it go. The AG changed the title of Prop. 8; the Court dismissed a lawsuit to keep Prop. 8.
The bottom line is that the state AG, the CA court, and others, stacked the deck to get Prop. 8 voted down. But, that plan BACKFIRED. To suggest that Prop. 8 is, all of a sudden, unconstitutional, when it wasn’t just six months ago, is ridiculous.
The court made its ruling in May, based on how the state Constitution read at that time. Furthermore, the amendment was placed on the ballot before the court made its ruling, anyway. So, regardless of how the court ruled on Prop. 22 (the previous marriage law from 2000), Prop. 8 was going before the voters.
Now, the constitution reads that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The state court must abide by the state constitution. And if Prop. 8 didn't clash with the constitution six months ago, it doesn't clash with it now.
The Decision by the CA Supreme Court in May determined that Prop 22 which was part of the civil code (now the CA Family Code) was unconstituional because it violated the Equal Protection clause of the constitution.
The argument being made now is that Prop 8 is a "de facto" revision to the constitution rather than an ammendment. This seems like a potentially valid argument because Prop 8 does not merely "add" to the constitution but it is really a back door way at re-writing the constition and that requires (from what I've read) a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a state constitutional convention.
The decision by the court in May on Prop 22 (again, part of the family code) is what makes Prop 8 (so the argument goes) a revision rather than an ammendment.
This wasn't a "back door" way of re-writing anything. This amendment was submitted BEFORE the court made its ruling on Prop. 22. And the court had MONTHS to look this over. If there were any problems, it should have been addressed then.
All attempts to keep Prop. 8 off the ballot were DISMISSED by the state court and by the attorney general, which implies that it's legit. But the actions of the court and the AG gives the sense that, since they could find no grounds to keep it off the ballot, the next best thing they could do is try to sway the outcome of the vote.
They did that by letting gay couples get marriage licenses, before the results of the vote came, and allowing the AG to change the title of Prop. 8.
Despite that, and all the negative press, Prop. 8 passed. And now, the court has to decide whether the estimated 18,000 licenses to gay couples are valid or not.
There's no way the court couldn't have known the potential mess that would be, should Prop. 8 get the voters' nod. It sounds to me as if they underestimated the electorate and got embarrased.
Plus, there's the matter of the federal Supreme Court's effective ruling regarding Baker v. Nelson. It dismissed a lawsuit by a gay couple, trying to reverse the Minnesota state court's ruling that 1M-1W marriage laws DO NOT violate the 14th amendment. Their suit was dismissed on its merits, which means the federal court sided with the Minnesota court. And that, I believe, is binding on all lower courts.
In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union. And the CA voters did just that.
This wasn't a "back door" way of re-writing anything. This amendment was submitted BEFORE the court made its ruling on Prop. 22. And the court had MONTHS to look this over. If there were any problems, it should have been addressed then.
All attempts to keep Prop. 8 off the ballot were DISMISSED by the state court and by the attorney general, which implies that it's legit. But the actions of the court and the AG gives the sense that, since they could find no grounds to keep it off the ballot, the next best thing they could do is try to sway the outcome of the vote.
They did that by letting gay couples get marriage licenses, before the results of the vote came, and allowing the AG to change the title of Prop. 8.
Despite that, and all the negative press, Prop. 8 passed. And now, the court has to decide whether the estimated 18,000 licenses to gay couples are valid or not.
There's no way the court couldn't have known the potential mess that would be, should Prop. 8 get the voters' nod. It sounds to me as if they underestimated the electorate and got embarrased.
Plus, there's the matter of the federal Supreme Court's effective ruling regarding Baker v. Nelson. It dismissed a lawsuit by a gay couple, trying to reverse the Minnesota state court's ruling that 1M-1W marriage laws DO NOT violate the 14th amendment. Their suit was dismissed on its merits, which means the federal court sided with the Minnesota court. And that, I believe, is binding on all lower courts.
In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union. And the CA voters did just that.
I will be shocked if a handful of judges in California do not find some way to invalidate the people's vote, again. They can't rely on the U.S. Constitution (no court has), but they can probably manufacture some argument based on whatever their state constitution says to get around what millions of California have now decided twice.
I suspect that the reasons they didn't stay the enforcement of their ruling a few months ago were (1) they wanted it to influence the outcome of the vote and (2) even if the vote was "Yes" on prop 8, they could then say the vote is contrary some newly created constitutional right that requires a two-thirds majority vote.
We'll probably see some contorted ruling in a few months.
This is Cut and Paste from an article in Salon and the whole article is worth reading: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/22/wittes/
That a law invalidated by a court is supported by a large majority is not an argument supporting the conclusion that the court's decision was wrong. Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws which even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law's enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds.
Contrary to Wittes' extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That's because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a "democracy" as much as it a "constitutional republic," precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. This is all just seventh-grade civics, something that the Brookings scholar and those condemning the California court's decision on similar grounds seem to have forgotten.
The duty -- the central obligation -- of judges faithfully applying the law and fulfilling their core duties is to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, without regard to what percentage of the population supports that law, and without regard to whether it would be "better" in some political sense if democratic majorities some day got around to changing their minds about it. It's perfectly appropriate for, say, marriage equality advocates or political candidates to take into account whether it would be preferable, in some political or strategic sense, to achieve gay marriage incrementally or legislatively, only once there is majority support for it. But that is a completely inappropriate factor for a judge to consider, because the judge's sole consideration is whether the law is consistent with Constitutional protections.
Alexander Hamilton, in defining the core function of federal judges in Federalist 78, explained this as clearly as it could be explained (though apparently not clearly enough for Wittes):wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.
When -- to use Hamilton's formulation -- judges "disregard" a "particular statute" in favor of constitutional guarantees, they aren't undermining our system of government. They're upholding it. The principal purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit the enactment of rights-abridging laws which, by definition (given that they are being democratically enacted), are supported by majorities. Anyone who argues that a court is acting improperly solely by virtue of the fact that it is striking down a popular law is someone who doesn't believe in the American system of government created by the Founders.
I understand the role of the courts, but at the end of the day everything is subject to popular vote. Sometimes it requires simple majority, sometimes it requires a super majority. Regardless, it still comes to down to a vote.
right, so you understand that a majority group cannot vote away the rights of a minorty group
it is still just a vote and it will come down to the vote of some judges on the Supreme Court
which is the way it's supposed to work
Yes they can. We just make it hard for a simple majority to take away rights guaranteed by the constitution. Those rights can be taken away by changing the constitution and the constitution can be only be changed by a vote.
The legislature passes the law, the president signs, vetoes, or lets become without his signature, and the courts interpret the law. If enough people disagree with the court's interpretation, we can vote to change the law. That's the way it's supposed to work.
if you want to change the constitution the argument (and I don't know if this is accurate or complete) is that it requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a constitutional convention
a simple majority of voters does not get to change the constitution
that's the point
the supreme courts judged the law (Prop 22 which was part of the civil code) unconstitutional and gave the judgmement that the state constitution created and protected the right of gay people to marry
A majority of voters cannot take away the rights of minority
if you want to change the constitution the argument (and I don't know if this is accurate or complete) is that it requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a constitutional convention (whatever that is, I assume it involves prostitutes)
Seriously, the point is that a simple majority vote of the electorate is not even an option as a way to ALTER the constitution which is what you would have to do given the decision in May 2008
Not true. A simple majority cannot change the U.S. Constitution. A super majority is required. Two thirds in the House and Senate and Two Thirds of the states. Still, this is done by vote.
State constitutions can be changed based on whatever the state constitution says. Some require super majority for some issues, some don't.
please explain what you mean by "change"
that is the heart of the matter
the interpretation of the CA Constitution is that gay people have the right to get married
Prop 8 contradicts that interpretation
you seem to understand the Prop 8 seeks to alter the constitution
Change means change. Amend, remove, alter, whatever you want to call it.
Of course prop 8 alters the constitution. That's precisely what the proposition says.
I'm not sure you understand that state and federal constitutions can be changed (altered, whatever) by popular vote (both simple majority and super majority depending on the issue and constitution involved).
But, it appears they prefer soft targets, as a white suburban Mormon church is far easier to attack, than black churches, Latino churches, and the govenor of the Golden state.
Wasn't Arnold against prop 8?
Well, it appears that homosexuals can do the same, if you will, as lamented by a black lesbian (in an Op-Ed from the LA Times), who claims that white gays are quick to hit blacks with racist comments.
From "No-on-8's White Bias":
The first problem with Proposition 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?
Second is the issue of civil rights. White gays often wonder aloud why blacks, of all people, won't support their civil rights. There is a real misunderstanding by the white gay community about the term. Proponents of gay marriage fling it around as if it is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase for issues of fairness.
But the black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity -- not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.....
There's nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue. If and when I choose to, I know how to say what needs to be said. Many black gays just haven't been convinced that this movement for marriage is about anything more than the white gays who fund it (and who, we often find, are just as racist and clueless when it comes to blacks as they claim blacks are homophobic).
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3295255.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3295255.story)
I think there is a good chance that Prop 8 will be overturned by the CA Supreme Court.
We are unique in this state that the right for gays to be married was recognized prior to the passage of the ammendment.
I think there is a good chance that Prop 8 will be overturned by the CA Supreme Court.
We are unique in this state that the right for gays to be married was recognized prior to the passage of the ammendment.
You are correct, but the chances of it (gay marriage) being passed by ballot in 2009 is pretty good, based on the numbers. And I think we could actually get that done faster than proving Prop 8's unconstitutionality in the courts, a process that will take years.
Good ol' Cali. Legislating from the bench FTL!
we live in a Constitutional Republic. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The California Constitution is the supreme law of the state. As defined in those constitutions, judges are suppose to make sure that laws passed by the legislature or by the people don't violate the constitution. If they overturn a law that they find unconstitutional, they're not legislating from the bench, they're doing their job.
When Arnold vetoed this the last time I believe he said it was up to the CA Supreme Court. Now that they've made their decision and he has come out against Prop 8 there might be a better chance for the legislature to get this passed.
as you said, the legislature had already passed it, twice. it was Arnold who vetoed it both times. passing it again and signing it probably wouldn't mean anything. Either Prop 8 was a valid constitutional amendment and would require another vote by the people to overturn, or it was not (in that it should have been 2/3 vote by legislature and 2/3 vote by people) and therefore the Supreme Court's ruling still stands.
we live in a Constitutional Republic. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The California Constitution is the supreme law of the state. As defined in those constitutions, judges are suppose to make sure that laws passed by the legislature or by the people don't violate the constitution. If they overturn a law that they find unconstitutional, they're not legislating from the bench, they're doing their job.
I understand that, I am just curious where in the constitution is explicity stated that two men could legally marry? I know the Califonria supreme court ruled to recognized these marriages, but isnt it also part of our process that we may amend our constitution if warrented?
I understand that, I am just curious where in the constitution is explicity stated that two men could legally marry?
I know the Califonria supreme court ruled to recognized these marriages, but isnt it also part of our process that we may amend our constitution if warrented?
equal protection clause. CASC ruled that since the state offers marriage licenses to opposite sex couples, they must also offer it to same sex couples.
1) minor changes to the constitution can be changed by the ballot initiative with a 50%+1 vote. core changes to the constitution require 2/3 vote of the legislature followed by 2/3 vote of the people. is this a minor change or a core change.
2) the California Constitution now has two conflicting clauses: gays must be treated the same as straights; gays cannot be given marriage licenses. the only way you can meet both clauses is to not offer marriage licenses to straights either.
we live in a Constitutional Republic. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The California Constitution is the supreme law of the state. As defined in those constitutions, judges are suppose to make sure that laws passed by the legislature or by the people don't violate the constitution. If they overturn a law that they find unconstitutional, they're not legislating from the bench, they're doing their job.
I voted yes on prop 8. I have a wife and 2 children. IMO, I don't hate gays, but their agenda. If it was left to just the marriage issue, maybe people wouldn't have such an issue with them. The fact is the majority of people have spoken, that is a democracy, the minority ruling and making decisions is socialism. This country was founded for 2 reasons, freedom to worship and taxation without representation. For some of you who want to talk about separatation of church and state, it simply meant this, that a religion can not run the goverment, it did not mean that religion can not have a say in goverment. The judicial system was set up for one reason "to interpet the law" not to make laws up. When they do, they make a mockery of our democracy. I voted for Arnold and I thought he was for our democracies, since he has been in office he flipped on this issue numerous times. He now comes out to support gays protesting and tell them to do it? Wow! Does he support their vandalism and violence? You will never pesuade people with violence, but rather lead to the other, which is hate. If this was on the other side, and the hetosexuals were doing the same protests, we would be labeled hate mongers and charged a crime. The gays civil rights are not violated. They now have more rights than ever, if you don't believe that go back to the 60,70,80,90's and see how times have changed. Sodomity(practicing homosexuality) use to be labeled a crime. California, is a very liberal state, the people have spoken and want to distingush traditional marriage between a man and a woman, it says no where in that prop to violate the civil rights of gays. Oh, I agree with an earlier post about being born that way, it is called sin, the difference is we have a choice. And for all you that hate homosexuals, and don't have any sin, cast the frist stone, as jesus would say. Don't hate anyone, just the performing acts of sin. I do not believe in the acts of abortion either, but it is law, but it doesn't not mean I have to agree to them. I am hoping our society stays a democracy, but I see a dwindeling downfall.
Exactly!!!
Per the federal's Court dismissal (on merits) to that gay couple's challenge of Baker v. Nelson, states have the authority to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The time for the CA court to address Prop. 8's constitutionality was SIX MONTHS AGO. They had plenty of opportunity and Prop. 8 opponents filed lawsuits to that effect. The CA court dismissed them; the state AG mentioned NOTHING about the alleged unconstitutionality of Prop. 8. That's why he changed the title of Prop. 8, hoping that it would encourage a "No" vote.
Again, few would be complaining about Prop. 8's constitutionality, had the people voted it down. But, they didn't. Now, it's part of the state constitution. What opponents of it are trying to do now is strike it down on a technicality, which, some say, is a long shot.
If it wasn't "unconstitutional" in May; it ain't "unconstitutional" in November.
The time for the CA court to address Prop. 8's constitutionality was SIX MONTHS AGO.
Exactly!!!
Per the federal's Court dismissal (on merits) to that gay couple's challenge of Baker v. Nelson, states have the authority to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The time for the CA court to address Prop. 8's constitutionality was SIX MONTHS AGO. They had plenty of opportunity and Prop. 8 opponents filed lawsuits to that effect. The CA court dismissed them; the state AG mentioned NOTHING about the alleged unconstitutionality of Prop. 8. That's why he changed the title of Prop. 8, hoping that it would encourage a "No" vote.
Again, few would be complaining about Prop. 8's constitutionality, had the people voted it down. But, they didn't. Now, it's part of the state constitution. What opponents of it are trying to do now is strike it down on a technicality, which, some say, is a long shot.
If it wasn't "unconstitutional" in May; it ain't "unconstitutional" in November.
More religious bullshit. Why is it a "sin"? Because a book written a couple thousand years ago tells you it is? That might be good enough for me if I were retarded. ::)
Yet again, religion controlling the minds of the sheep.
Please refresh my memory. What lawsuits were presented to the CA Supreme Court challenging that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. I can't find any but I guess there must be some because you've mentioned it a few times.
The only reference to the case you listed appears to be from Minnesota in 1972.
It seems to be that once the Supreme Court made the decision in May that acknowledged that gay couples had the right to marry that there is now a valid (seemingly) challenge to the constitutionality of Prop 8. Prior to that decision there would not be a similar argument.
The decision by the court was in May of 2008 and Prop 8 didn't even get the votes necessary to get on the ballot until June.
More religious bullshit. Why is it a "sin"? Because a book written a couple thousand years ago tells you it is? That might be good enough for me if I were retarded. ::)
Yet again, religion controlling the minds of the sheep.
The Yes group outworked the No group. No took a lot of things for granted, not the least of which was the resolve of the Yes campaign to spread their divisiveness across California and the rest of the nation.
No won't get caught flat-footed next time around, though. You can bank on that.
There will be another round of protests this weekend and then things should die down a bit while some stuff works its way through the courts and that's when the work of getting the necessary petitions going will get underway.
It's going to become a reality for California in either 2009 or 2010, so the truly interesting thing to observe will be how the current Yes on 8 crowd reacts when gay marriage is granted equal standing in the eyes of the law.
That would be the following (from Wikipedia):
Early legal challenges
On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005-1006.) The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved, and a new petition arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision was filed by civil rights groups on November 5, 2008.
why didn't you highlight this part?
Call it poster’s prerogative. ;D
I also mentioned that the attorney general looked over Prop. 8, as well. Again, any constitutional problems could have and should have been addressed six months ago.
Besides, I also mentioned (per the Chronicle's article) that, while there's room for a postelection challenge, this is a big hurdle for the plantiffs. If they can’t show that Prop. 8 equates to a constitutional revision, Prop. 8 stands.
agreed - that is the crux of the matter.
Indeed. But, the problem is that it doesn't favor the plantiffs, as [i]"The court has almost always rejected such challenges to other constitutional amendments."[/i]
yeah - well this one is unique given that it takes away existing rights.
We'll see what happens.
I guess if the case goes to the Supreme Court and is rejected or fails then a new ballot initiative can be proposed to rescind Prop 8 at the next election and this can just become a political volleyball every election year.
That would be the following (from Wikipedia): As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005-1006.) The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved