Cowardly "No on Prop. 8" supporters in California?

[Straw Man]

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

[w8tlftr]

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

And Evangelicals call themselves conservatives. 



 

[CQ]

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.

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.

[chaos]

Yes, thanks, Arkansas.

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.

[Buffgeek]

Most religious people are hypocrits.

Nothing happens when you die!



 

[Straw Man]

Nothing happens when you die!
 

yep

[MCWAY]

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. 

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.

[Decker]

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.

[loco]

Most religious people are hypocrits.

Hypocrits?  Some of them might even be hypocrites too.  

[timfogarty]

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.

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

[MCWAY]

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.

The court looked at Prop. 8 and so did the state Attorney General, as it was submitted to be put on the ballot, before the CA court ruled against Prop. 22 (the marriage law, voted in 2000).

Regardless how the court ruled, Prop. 8 would have been on the ballot. If there were any clashes between it and the state constitution, the court and the AG should have dealt with it six months ago.

My personal opinion is that the court's and AG's plan backfired on them, as they were expecting Prop. 8 to fail. That would have washed their hands of this issue entirely and allowed them to say that they made the right call by legalizing gay "marriage" AND that they let the people vote on the matter.

It appears that the big issue now is what happens to the estimated 18,000 licenses given to gay couples, prior to Nov. 5. The court will have to decide whether or not Prop. 8 is retroactive.

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?

Maybe, maybe not! I already mentioned that, unless it runs foul of the federal Constitution (which marriage amendments DO NOT), the people's vote makes the call.

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.

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

Sexual preference makes no difference, when it comes to marriage laws. No matter how much homosexual behavior you'd exhibit or sex acts in which you engaged (past or present), if you bring someone of the OPPOSITE sex to get a marriage license, you get one.

This is about defining marriage itself, not defining who gets to participate in marriage. If marriage were simply defined as a union of any two adults, that'd be one thing. But, it is clearly defined (once again) as union between one man and one woman. Gay or straight, it's one man one woman. Not wanting marriage with someone of the opposite sex and not being able to marry someone of the opposite sex are two different issues.

As I've said multiple times, if those who support gay "marriage" want the definition changed to, as listed above, a union of any two adults, there is NOTHING stopping them from doing what their opponents did: Start petitions and initiatives, get several hundred thousand signatures, get the amendment placed on the ballot, and have the people vote on it.

If they don't get it done the first time, then try again. Look what happened in Arizona. Two years ago, a marriage amendment didn't pass; but, the traditional marriage advocates didn't stop there. They tried again, got another amendment on the ballot (one that left unmarried couples, hetero or homo, out of the equation) and they passed it.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

I find it hysterical that the overwhelming minority vote for Obama is what got gay marriage banned.

Go blacks and hispanics!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[TrapsMcLats]

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.

I laugh my ass off at unamerican people like you who think you can actually stop this from happening.  As society progresses it becomes more liberal.  this isn't going away, and everyone deserves equal rights.  I guess you can go pray to a make believe god and feel better about it if you like.  Save me jeebus!

[CQ]

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.

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

[loco]

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.

Marriage brings happiness?         

[TrapsMcLats]

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

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.  

[MCWAY]

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.

[TrapsMcLats]

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.

Umm, missionary work= we'll help you if, and only if, you cease your heathen ways and convert to our religion.

yeah, great stuff.

[CQ]

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.  

Good post.

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.

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. 

Umm, missionary work= we'll help you if, and only if, you cease your heathen ways and convert to our religion.

yeah, great stuff.

Some missionaries do great work, others are morons. I just tossed some from my door earlier actually.

[drkaje]

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.

Same argument could be made on abortion.

[timfogarty]

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)?

yes, there have been four marches through my neighborhood since Tuesday.   It's like a war zone, burning Hummers everywhere, random acts of redecoration, thousands of arrest.   they were going to call out the national guard, but everyone is in Iraq.

where _do_ you get your news from?   

[timfogarty]

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.

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.  

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.