Prop 8 heads to Calif. Supreme Court

Guess we should give up voting on everything and let the government decide what's best.

Then and now the courts have ruled the majority is infringing upon the rights of the minority based upon the 14th amendment. Someday majorities will learn that there is no reason to treat people differently when their behavior does not harm anybody against their consent.

Who decides if it harms somebody?

In this case it's reasonably obvious. Two adults forming a contract with each other is nobody else's business. It will not cause Christian marriages to collapse.

Could something harm someone morally?

Not when we're talking about consenting adults only. Child welfare is a separate issue as not all married people are fit parents. Not all heterosexual marriages are moral. Personally, I don't think children are harmed by thinking homosexuality is okay, but gay adoption is an issue that can be decided separately.

Adults are responsible for their own morality and legislating morality upon adults makes morality meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Then and now the courts have ruled the majority is infringing upon the rights of the minority based upon the 14th amendment. Someday majorities will learn that there is no reason to treat people differently when their behavior does not harm anybody against their consent.

Who decides if it harms somebody? Could something harm someone morally?

Explain how another persons actions could possibly harm anothers morality if they are ot directly involved ...

Unfortunately, we don't all live in caves. People do things all the time that other people are aware of. Some people feel that dating/marriage outside their own race or dating "too young/old" is offensive. Some people feel that they should be allowed to use narcotics in their own home. Some people feel that H.S. cheer leading routines are too risque. The list goes on or on.

Everyone has an opinion. Who is to say that one person's opinion is correct or incorrect.
 
Who decides if it harms somebody? Could something harm someone morally?

Explain how another persons actions could possibly harm anothers morality if they are ot directly involved ...

Unfortunately, we don't all live in caves. People do things all the time that other people are aware of. Some people feel that dating/marriage outside their own race or dating "too young/old" is offensive. Some people feel that they should be allowed to use narcotics in their own home. Some people feel that H.S. cheer leading routines are too risque. The list goes on or on.

Everyone has an opinion. Who is to say that one person's opinion is correct or incorrect.

People don't have the right to never be offended. We could use an amendment that says that too. The impacts you speak of here are all very indirect and do not tangibly or inherently affect anybody.

Things get a bit more complicated when you speak of minors, though. But immoral people are a fact of life. Parents need to take responsibility for giving their kids context for an imperfect world, and that includes people getting married for, "the wrong reasons."
 
Explain how another persons actions could possibly harm anothers morality if they are ot directly involved ...

Unfortunately, we don't all live in caves. People do things all the time that other people are aware of. Some people feel that dating/marriage outside their own race or dating "too young/old" is offensive. Some people feel that they should be allowed to use narcotics in their own home. Some people feel that H.S. cheer leading routines are too risque. The list goes on or on.

Everyone has an opinion. Who is to say that one person's opinion is correct or incorrect.

People don't have the right to never be offended. We could use an amendment that says that too. The impacts you speak of here are all very indirect and do not tangibly or inherently affect anybody.

Things get a bit more complicated when you speak of minors, though. But immoral people are a fact of life. Parents need to take responsibility for giving their kids context for an imperfect world, and that includes people getting married for, "the wrong reasons."

But they aren't indirect to certain people. You are telling someone that they shouldn't be offended because YOU don't think those actions don't tangibly or inherently affect anybody.

That is YOUR opinion. They have just as much right to theirs.

You don't get to choose what is offensive to others.
 
I still don't see how another persons actions could possibly force another person to behave against their own morals in any way.
 
Unfortunately, we don't all live in caves. People do things all the time that other people are aware of. Some people feel that dating/marriage outside their own race or dating "too young/old" is offensive. Some people feel that they should be allowed to use narcotics in their own home. Some people feel that H.S. cheer leading routines are too risque. The list goes on or on.

Everyone has an opinion. Who is to say that one person's opinion is correct or incorrect.

People don't have the right to never be offended. We could use an amendment that says that too. The impacts you speak of here are all very indirect and do not tangibly or inherently affect anybody.

Things get a bit more complicated when you speak of minors, though. But immoral people are a fact of life. Parents need to take responsibility for giving their kids context for an imperfect world, and that includes people getting married for, "the wrong reasons."

But they aren't indirect to certain people. You are telling someone that they shouldn't be offended because YOU don't think those actions don't tangibly or inherently affect anybody.

That is YOUR opinion. They have just as much right to theirs.

You don't get to choose what is offensive to others.

No I'm saying what is offensive should have no bearing on law because nobody is tangibly affected. Their person, property, privacy, ability to do their job or live their lives is not in any way affected unless they choose to be irrational about it.
 
I still don't see how another persons actions could possibly force another person to behave against their own morals in any way.

I'm not talking about "behaving" (making them do something) against their own morals.

I'm just talking about how their actions can be morally offensive to someone else.
 
Okay ... in the wise words of Penn and Teller: "Everything is offensive to someone ... who is to say that ones offense is more important than anothers?"
 
Thank you. This is what I am saying.

Which brings me back to California. They voted. It's done.

A certain group of people, the same ones who demanded the issue be voted upon, didn't like how it turned out.

Sorry.

It's done.

My problem isn't with the issue. My problem is that fact that they didn't like the way it turned out so they want to do something that will over rule the will of the people.
 
Thank you. This is what I am saying.

Which brings me back to California. They voted. It's done.

A certain group of people, the same ones who demanded the issue be voted upon, didn't like how it turned out.

Sorry.

It's done.

My problem isn't with the issue. My problem is that fact that they didn't like the way it turned out so they want to do something that will over rule the will of the people.

So were they wrong to overrule the will of the people for interracial marriage in 1967?
 
Thank you. This is what I am saying.

Which brings me back to California. They voted. It's done.

A certain group of people, the same ones who demanded the issue be voted upon, didn't like how it turned out.

Sorry.

It's done.

My problem isn't with the issue. My problem is that fact that they didn't like the way it turned out so they want to do something that will over rule the will of the people.

So were they wrong to overrule the will of the people for interracial marriage in 1967?

Yes.

Not because of the issue, but because they overturned the will of the people.

If they powers that be wanted interracial marriage to be accepted, they probably could have found a way to make it happen.

If you are going to put something to a vote, then you must live with the results.
 
Thank you. This is what I am saying.

Which brings me back to California. They voted. It's done.

A certain group of people, the same ones who demanded the issue be voted upon, didn't like how it turned out.

Sorry.

It's done.

My problem isn't with the issue. My problem is that fact that they didn't like the way it turned out so they want to do something that will over rule the will of the people.

So were they wrong to overrule the will of the people for interracial marriage in 1967?

Yes.

Not because of the issue, but because they overturned the will of the people.

If they powers that be wanted interracial marriage to be accepted, they probably could have found a way to make it happen.

If you are going to put something to a vote, then you must live with the results.

They seem to be taking every avenue they can. For them, it needs to be addressed ASAP in order for them to have the same legal rights in their lifetime. However, voting doesn't make anything a done deal in the long run. I would be surprised if public opinion didn't turn in their favor within a decade. And it easily may come up for a vote again.
 
Burp: So then you are for the government telling people how to live and how to follow their religious ideals.

Never said that. I actually would like government to butt out of a lot of things.

My point is this. And I am really only talking about the Prop 8 issue. The pro Prop 8 group did everything they could to get the issue on the ballot. After years of trying, they succeeded.

They finally got the issue before the population of the state.

And they lost.

So now what do they do? They didn't like how the people voted so they want it go to to court. Essentially asking the court to agree that every single person who voted against the proposition was wrong.

They use the system (get enough signatures to get it on the ballot) to have their issue voted on; then when they don't get the result they wanted/expected, they want to over-rule the entire system that enabled them to have the issue voted upon in the first place.

I will say it again. Be careful what you ask for.
 
Burp: So then you are for the government telling people how to live and how to follow their religious ideals.

Never said that. I actually would like government to butt out of a lot of things.

My point is this. And I am really only talking about the Prop 8 issue. The pro Prop 8 group did everything they could to get the issue on the ballot. After years of trying, they succeeded.

They finally got the issue before the population of the state.

And they lost.

So now what do they do? They didn't like how the people voted so they want it go to to court. Essentially asking the court to agree that every single person who voted against the proposition was wrong.

They use the system (get enough signatures to get it on the ballot) to have their issue voted on; then when they don't get the result they wanted/expected, they want to over-rule the entire system that enabled them to have the issue voted upon in the first place.

I will say it again. Be careful what you ask for.

Suppose the law said that you couldn't marry the person you love because of race, gender, eye color or some other type that "isn't right" according to society's norms of the day. If the people democratically passed an arbitrary law against people like you marrying whatever type of person you want, would you just give up at that point?
 
Burp: So then you are for the government telling people how to live and how to follow their religious ideals.

Never said that. I actually would like government to butt out of a lot of things.

My point is this. And I am really only talking about the Prop 8 issue. The pro Prop 8 group did everything they could to get the issue on the ballot. After years of trying, they succeeded.

They finally got the issue before the population of the state.

And they lost.

So now what do they do? They didn't like how the people voted so they want it go to to court. Essentially asking the court to agree that every single person who voted against the proposition was wrong.

They use the system (get enough signatures to get it on the ballot) to have their issue voted on; then when they don't get the result they wanted/expected, they want to over-rule the entire system that enabled them to have the issue voted upon in the first place.

I will say it again. Be careful what you ask for.

In that case there should be NO legal effects of marriage what-so-ever, as well as no legal rights or benefits, no tax laws, nothing. Until such time the government is involved and whether you like it or not, not matter the outcome, the government is telling people what they should believe religiously and how to live their lives.
 
Burp: So then you are for the government telling people how to live and how to follow their religious ideals.

Never said that. I actually would like government to butt out of a lot of things.

My point is this. And I am really only talking about the Prop 8 issue. The pro Prop 8 group did everything they could to get the issue on the ballot. After years of trying, they succeeded.

They finally got the issue before the population of the state.

And they lost.

So now what do they do? They didn't like how the people voted so they want it go to to court. Essentially asking the court to agree that every single person who voted against the proposition was wrong.

They use the system (get enough signatures to get it on the ballot) to have their issue voted on; then when they don't get the result they wanted/expected, they want to over-rule the entire system that enabled them to have the issue voted upon in the first place.

I will say it again. Be careful what you ask for.

Suppose the law said that you couldn't marry the person you love because of race, gender, eye color or some other type that "isn't right" according to society's norms of the day. If the people democratically passed an arbitrary law against people like you marrying whatever type of person you want, would you just give up at that point?


The group who petitioned for prop 8 got what they wanted. Their petition over ruled a California Supreme Court decision and added a new amendment to the California Constitution which says, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

California Proposition 8 (2008 - Ballotpedia)

Background


California first explicitly defined marriage as a state between a man and woman in 1977.[7] That year, the California State Legislature passed a law that said that marriage is a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman". While no previous California legislation contained explicit language regarding sex or gender, California law prior to 1959 explicitly prohibited marriage between people of different races. Many other states prohibited interracial marriage until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, in the case Loving v. Virginia. [8]

In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with a margin of 61%, which changed California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman. Prop. 22 was a statutory change via the initiative process, not a constitutional change via the initiative process.

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in his city, which were subsequently judicially annulled. This case, and some others, eventually led to a decision announced on May 15, 2008 of the California Supreme Court, which by a 4-3 vote struck down Proposition 22.[9]

Prior to the May 2008 state supreme court decision, opponents of same-sex marriage had already begun their efforts to qualify Prop. 8 for the ballot. Their reasoning at the time was that since Prop. 22 was only a statute, it was subject to judicial review in a way that an amendment to the constitution would not be.[10],[11],[12]

When supporters of Proposition 8 submitted their measure to the California Secretary of State in 2007 for permission to circulate, the ballot title that was given to it was the "California Marriage Protection Act." At that time, Proposition 22 was the governing law in the state with regard to gay marriage and the term "marriage protection" appears to have meant something like "adding additional protection to the idea of one man-one woman marriage by enshrining it in the constitution, not just as a statute". However, between the time that Prop. 8 got its original permission-to-circulate ballot title, and the time they turned in their signatures and became ballot certified, Prop. 22 no longer had any governing force.[13] After the proposition was certified for the ballot, the title and summary were revised by Attorney General Jerry Brown to more "accurately reflect the measure." (See Lawsuits, California Proposition 8 (2008)).

Proposition 8 adds a new amendment to the California Constitution which says, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Before it passed, same-sex marriage was a constitutionally-protected right in California; a majority of the justices of the California Supreme Court affirmed this understanding of the constitution in May 2008.
 
Burp: So then you are for the government telling people how to live and how to follow their religious ideals.

Never said that. I actually would like government to butt out of a lot of things.

My point is this. And I am really only talking about the Prop 8 issue. The pro Prop 8 group did everything they could to get the issue on the ballot. After years of trying, they succeeded.

They finally got the issue before the population of the state.

And they lost.

So now what do they do? They didn't like how the people voted so they want it go to to court. Essentially asking the court to agree that every single person who voted against the proposition was wrong.

They use the system (get enough signatures to get it on the ballot) to have their issue voted on; then when they don't get the result they wanted/expected, they want to over-rule the entire system that enabled them to have the issue voted upon in the first place.

I will say it again. Be careful what you ask for.

Suppose the law said that you couldn't marry the person you love because of race, gender, eye color or some other type that "isn't right" according to society's norms of the day. If the people democratically passed an arbitrary law against people like you marrying whatever type of person you want, would you just give up at that point?

If I did everything I could to get it in front of the people and ended up "losing," then I would have to live with the result.

I would campaign for and go door to door to get politicians who sided with me elected so maybe the next time around, I might win.
 
Burp: So then you are for the government telling people how to live and how to follow their religious ideals.

Never said that. I actually would like government to butt out of a lot of things.

My point is this. And I am really only talking about the Prop 8 issue. The pro Prop 8 group did everything they could to get the issue on the ballot. After years of trying, they succeeded.

They finally got the issue before the population of the state.

And they lost.

So now what do they do? They didn't like how the people voted so they want it go to to court. Essentially asking the court to agree that every single person who voted against the proposition was wrong.

They use the system (get enough signatures to get it on the ballot) to have their issue voted on; then when they don't get the result they wanted/expected, they want to over-rule the entire system that enabled them to have the issue voted upon in the first place.

I will say it again. Be careful what you ask for.

In that case there should be NO legal effects of marriage what-so-ever, as well as no legal rights or benefits, no tax laws, nothing. Until such time the government is involved and whether you like it or not, not matter the outcome, the government is telling people what they should believe religiously and how to live their lives.

I suppose if a group of people wanted to get that on the next ballot, they are free to do that. However, I think it won't be passed by popular vote.

I would LOVE to see the tax issue on a ballot, The government will never allow it though.

I don't recall the government telling me, or anyone else, anything about religious beliefs.

I didn't vote for BO. I REALLY didn't want him elected. But he won, so I have to live with it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top