Proposition 8

[Hereford]

  The treasonous government is undermining the vote of the people. Absolute bullshit if the ban gets overturned.

It will.

Just like prop 287 did by a San Fran liberal hispanic judge.

A lot of people would ba much more supportave of the gays causes if they didn't throw it in everyones faced every chance they get.

They don't get their way, they protest and assault old people.

[War-Horse]

Romans 1: 26,27.        Ewwwww

[Straw Man]

That's also why the courts don't assign who has rights and who doesn't. Ultimately, it's the people who define their constitution. And the state courts answer to the state constitution.

That state constitution now says that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, which makes that May ruling moot.

The only issue now is, per the CA Constitution, whether it takes a 51% majority electorate + 67% supermajority Legislature or just the 51% majority electorate.

Either way, the people get a say.

exactly

the court decided that gays had been unlawfully denied a right and now that recognized right has been taken away

I guess, assuming the CA Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, that a 51% majority elecortorate can just ammend the constitution later through another ballot initiative....right?

[MCWAY]

exactly

the court decided that gays had been unlawfully denied a right and now that recognized right has been taken away

I guess, assuming the CA Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, that a 51% majority elecortorate can just ammend the constitution later through another ballot initiative....right?

Yes, it can. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen. There have been rumors of such a ballot initiative. But, I've seen nothing concrete. Remember that it took over 2 years to get enough signatures for Prop. 8 to get on the ballot.

Gay "marriage" advocates would have to do that in about half that time, if they want to get an amendment on the ballot by 2010.

[Straw Man]

Yes, it can. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen. There have been rumors of such a ballot initiative. But, I've seen nothing concrete. Remember that it took over 2 years to get enough signatures for Prop. 8 to get on the ballot.

Gay "marriage" advocates would have to do that in about half that time, if they want to get an amendment on the ballot by 2010.

yet another reason why the CA Supreme Court should overturn Prop 8.

This will just become a political ping pong ball in every election.

[Hereford]

exactly

the court decided that gays had been unlawfully denied a right and now that recognized right has been taken away

I guess, assuming the CA Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, that a 51% majority elecortorate can just ammend the constitution later through another ballot initiative....right?

Gays did not lose any rights. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

[Soul Crusher]

Gays did not lose any rights. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

I cant wait for gays to experience gay divorce.

They will be damning the day they asked to get married.

Suckers (No pun intended). 

[240 is Back]

what if the ppl had approved it.

THEN, the state had decided to override the will of the people and strike down that right.  People would be rioting, right?

I know they fought hard to get it on the ballot, but the majority of americans do not want it. 

[Dos Equis]

Gays did not lose any rights. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Ding! 

[Straw Man]

Ding! 

is that the sound you hear in your empty skull?

how do you explain all those legal gay marriages?

Of course gays had the right to get married.  If not, there would be no need for this thread.

The court decided last year the right existed all along and had been illegally denied.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. Associate Justices

[Dos Equis]

is that the sound you hear in your empty skull?

how do you explain all those legal gay marriages?

Of course gays had the right to get married.  If not, there would be no need for this thread.

The court decided last year the right existed all along and had been illegally denied.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. Associate Justices

You should hurry and find yourself a husband before the CA Supreme Court upholds the people's vote.   

[Straw Man]

You should hurry and find yourself a husband before the CA Supreme Court upholds the people's vote.   

nah - I think your wife would miss our weekly "visits". 

She always complains about how you spend all day long on the computer looking at pictures of oiled men in thongs and complaining about gay people.   I keep telling her if you stopped eating all that soy and had some red meat you might be able to get it up again

[Dos Equis]

nah - I think your wife would miss our weekly "visits". 

She always complains about how you spend all day long on the computer looking at pictures of oiled men in thongs and complaining about gay people.   I keep telling her if you stopped eating all that soy and had some red meat you might be able to get it up again

lol.  Wrong again.  She's not lesbian, so you're out of luck. 

[Straw Man]

lol.  Wrong again.  She's not lesbian, so you're out of luck. 

yes, I'm well aware she's not a lesbian.