California Marriage law- Not really anti-gay

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by seth1492, Oct 1, 2008.

  1. seth1492
    Offline

    seth1492 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    102
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    Some of you may be hearing about the California initiative on the ballots for Nov. 4th, Proposition 8. It occurred because the California Supreme Court overruled current California law allowing Gay marriage. Many questions have come up, but the real question is legally does it really affect other states.
    Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause will other states be affected or does it really matter to America? Also is it really anti-gay or just pro-family?

    Your thoughts and comments are appreciated!
     
  2. Contessa_Sharra
    Offline

    Contessa_Sharra Searcher for Accuracy

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Thanks Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +147
    What is the reason GLTB people should not marry the person of their choice?

    Should they not be allowed to be just as miserable as married heteros are?

    Equality under the law! FOR ALL PEOPLE!

    Heteros can marry whom they like, or is it that heteros want to marry heteros and GLTB people, too?

    Better that a GLTB person marry with and be whom they are than marry hetero and hide for a lifetime and then decide at fifty+ to "move on." Don't you think?
     
  3. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    This is the repercussion of thinking the courts can undermine the democratic will of the people. It's going to be interesting to see if that state remains blue while that issue is on the ballot.
     
  4. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    I oppose gay marriage but only on what some might consider hyper-technical grounds. I don't believe that Sate should give what it does not have to give. Marriage belongs to religion. Up to now, the State has taken a shortcut and merely incorporated the institution of "marriage" into an unending list of benefit, legal statuses etc.

    What does belong to the State is the the ability to recognize as legitimate the union of two people for the purpose of public life. The State has the ability to place that union on the same ground and level as a traditional marriage in the eyes of the State and the law. I'm perfectly happy with that result.

    If the various religions wish to recognize gay marriage, that's great too. That's their decision and their right and their province which should not be encroached on my government (Remember separation of Church and State?) If gay marriage is recognized by the State, then certain organizations will use that as a battering ram against religion. I think that would be a patently unfair result. A State decision on this matter should not be used as a wrecking ball against religion. Therefore, I think Civil Unions or whatever you want to call it (but not marriage) should be granted for equality's sake.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Its anti-gay and anti-family. Straights aren't the only ones allowed to have families. Its pro-homophobe, but I don't much like supporting those folk.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Lmao, still on this claptrap?

    Want to bet on whether it will remain blue or not?

    By the way, not only will it remain blue, but most likely the prop will fail.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    I'm not going to respond to the bulk of your post. But your basic premise is incorrect. The right to marry is granted by the state. That is why your local priest, minister or whatever says "by the power vested in me by the state of....."

    Beyond that, no one wants to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to. But the state shouldn't be able to discriminate.
     
  8. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    Oh, I have no doubt that it will reamin marginally blue.. but it's going to be a cold splash of water in your pants if gay marraige also gets invalidated on a common ballot.

    We'll see if the prop fails... Ellen seemed to think it drastic enough to bring up on Leno last night..
     
  9. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Not really. It was already voted on in a referendum to make gay marriage illegal, and was declared unconstitutional. So they are now trying to change the Constitution. If the worst they can do in response to the California Supreme Court is to change the Constitution, doesn't seem like it did much of anything bad, especially since there is a large chance it will fail.

    Polls aren't looking too good for prop 8 right now.
     
  10. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    Opinion polls

    A simple majority of votes cast is required to enact a constitutional amendment.[67]
    Date of opinion poll Conducted by Sample size In favor Against Undecided
    25 September 2008[68][69] SurveyUSA 661 44% 49% 8%
    24 September 2008[70] Public Policy Institute of California 1,157 41% 55% 4%
    16 September 2008[71] The Field Poll 830 38% 55% 7%
    27 August 2008[72] Public Policy Institute of California 1,047 40% 54% 6%
    17 July 2008[73] The Field Poll 672 42% 51% 7%
    28 May 2008[74] The Field Poll 1,052 42% 51% 7%
    23 May 2008[75] Los Angeles Times/KTLA 834 54% 35% 11%
    California Proposition 8 (2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


    HA!

    yea... a 5 point difference is what is supposed to be the bastion of blue of the most azure state in the union with at LEAST that much in the "undecideds" sure is, uh, looking bad...
     

Share This Page