Prop 8 in California

[DavidS]

Banning Sodomite marriage is just the first step.

Next, we need to criminalize homosexuality and lock them up.

No, next thing we need to do is criminalize idiots like you and lock them up.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. Let people be happy and enjoy their lives without fear of reprisal.

The bill of rights says "All men are created equal" therefore; all of us, every single american citizen IS equal. We should ALL be afforded the same rights, no matter religion, gender, race or sexual preference. Any definition of what marriage is, is a violation of civil rights.

 

[DavidS]

This would all be pretty much a non-issue if the homosexual community would simply drop the whole thing about marriage... their attempt to FORCE America to change the definition of marriage for them is ridiculous...

I think they could definitely get equal treatment under inheritance rights, spousal decisions, etc if they would simply accept the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman, and that a homosexual pairing could have the same rights but simply be called a union...

But no... this is not about equal rights... it is well into force and pushing an agenda... which does not bode well with the American public

Marriage is a right. The government does not have the power to define what right is applicable to anyone else. We did that before and it failed. The gay community needs their own MLK.

 

[del]

No, next thing we need to do is criminalize idiots like you and lock them up.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. Let people be happy and enjoy their lives without fear of reprisal.

The bill of rights says "All men are created equal" therefore; all of us, every single american citizen IS equal. We should ALL be afforded the same rights, no matter religion, gender, race or sexual preference. Any definition of what marriage is, is a violation of civil rights.

nowhere in the bill of rights does it say all men are created equal

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[del]

Marriage is a right. The government does not have the power to define what right is applicable to anyone else. We did that before and it failed. The gay community needs their own MLK.

apparently, congress felt otherwise

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Navy1960]

102 - Proposed amendment to the constitution defining marriage as being between a man and a woman only.

99% of Precincts Reporting
YES - 55.4%
NO - 44.5%

Just thought I might add Arizona'a prop. to this thread. We have had several propositions pass this year that run contrary to the move to the lef theme of the country. The most interesting one IMHO is our health care right amendment that passed.

 

[DiamondDave]

Actually, what it has to do with is equality. To call marriage between homosexuals something other than marriage is the samething as the "different but equal" policies after Jim Crowe but before the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s - and we all know that isn't equal.

This is an issue that is controversial for monotheists whose religious beliefs don't allow homosexuality. If we are going to live in a nation that abides by the separation of church and state then we really have an obligation to allow gay marriage. And if we are going to live in a nation that is truly free, then we must have equality for all people.

No... that is not about equality... that is about redefinition... but nice try

 

[Shogun]

Now who the fuck was it that I was sparring with over this issue back when the Cali supreme court fucked up and forgot that they were not supposed to legislate from the bench? I predicted that this massive blue state would turn around and amend their fucking constitution in rebuttal to that affront to our constitutional system and.. well.. what do you fucking know...


DAMN im good.

 

[Vintij]

Think about this Californians.


A majority of you essentially decided to side with a mormon backed campaign. The mormon church, which was officially racist until 1979, officially homophobic until, well technically they have not had the revalation yet. So congratulations Californians. You chose for the first time, to take away rights from people who already had them, and you did it by listening to a church that did not allow black people through the doors until 20 YEARS AFTER the civil rights movement. Fucking pathetic if you ask me. Im not upset though because obviously the younger generation sent a HUGE message with the election of Sen. Obama. The youngsters said that the times are changing and this type of shit is going to be a thing of the past. Within the next few generations the social differences and demorphisms in race, class, caste, sexual orientation....and everything else will be a trivial ideology and will dissapear. Never again will an election be decided by our differences, but by our collective will as a people. Props, will soon follow. So enjoy prop 8 homophoboes, enjoy it while it lasts because I can guarantee that it will not stand up to the state supreme court nor will the next generation allow it to hold.

 

[del]

Think about this Californians.


A majority of you essentially decided to side with a mormon backed campaign. The mormon church, which was officially racist until 1979, officially homophobic until, well technically they have not had the revalation yet. So congratulations Californians. You chose for the first time, to take away rights from people who already had them, and you did it by listening to a church that did not allow black people through the doors until 20 YEARS AFTER the civil rights movement. Fucking pathetic if you ask me. Im not upset though because obviously the younger generation sent a HUGE message with the election of Sen. Obama. The youngsters said that the times are changing and this type of shit is going to be a thing of the past. Within the next few generations the social differences and demorphisms in race, class, caste, sexual orientation....and everything else will be a trivial ideology and will dissapear. Never again will an election be decided by our differences, but by our collective will as a people. Props, will soon follow. So enjoy prop 8 homophoboes, enjoy it while it lasts because I can guarantee that it will not stand up to the state supreme court nor will the next generation allow it to hold.

it's a constitutional amendment. by definition, it is in no danger of being overturned by the state supreme court. good to know you hate mormons, though.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No... that is not about equality... that is about redefinition... but nice try

If you can't understand that homosexuals who live in the US want equality (like everyone else) and can only get it by redefining marriage, then there is just no getting through to you.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

nowhere in the bill of rights does it say all men are created equal

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, but it says in the Delaration of Independence:

The Declaration of Independence

So, by these laws that ban gay marriage we still aren't living up to the ideals which created this nation.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

apparently, congress felt otherwise

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This does not legitimize the simple fact that homosexuals do not have equality in a nation that is supposed to be free.

 

[del]

No, but it says in the Delaration of Independence:

The Declaration of Independence

So, by these laws that ban gay marriage we still aren't living up to the ideals which created this nation.

it seems to be the will of the people in california. i live in mass and i really don't give two shits who marries who. take it up with a californian. kudos for identifying the correct doc.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That depends on your interpretation of states rights. Should a minority of people be given less freedom because a majority thinks it's immoral? Abortion is one thing, but gay marriage? Who does that hurt? It's such a silly argument. You don't like gay marriage? Ok, fine. Don't be gay and don't get married!

Marriage is between a man and a woman. I suggest they accept Civil Unions. Something even a lot of conservatives will agree to.

My personal opinion on the matter is since it is "legal" in several States the Government should get OUT of the Marriage Business all together. The need for laws can be covered by Civil Unions. Everyone gets a Civil Union by the State and if they want a Marriage they find a church willing to do it. Solves all the problems and preserves the "good faith" clause of the Constitution between the States.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I find it amazing that so many people care more about the issue of Gay Marriage and they aren't even gay. They just don't want gays to get married.

Something like $73 million was spent on this prop in ads,etc. It boggles the mind.

Imagine how much that could go towards poverty.

Obama spent MILLIONS more on his campaign, IMAGE how much help that would have been for POVERTY?

 

[del]

This does not legitimize the simple fact that homosexuals do not have equality in a nation that is supposed to be free.

and again , i suggest you take it up with the people who passed the bill in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. i really don't care who gets married to whom.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you kidding me? California is the leftmost state there is! But the fact that it will pass is proof that conservative ideas are still popular. I'm guessing it's the huge Hispanic Catholic vote pushing this. They don't like gays or abortion you know.
Don't worry though, liberal activist judges will circumvent the will of the people in this case by overturning it at the state level. We can't have any of that "Direct Democracy" now can we? The great unwashed masses haven't a clue do they?

They can not, it is a change to the Constitution. Meaning ABOVE the courts.

 

[Vintij]

it's a constitutional amendment. by definition, it is in no danger of being overturned by the state supreme court. good to know you hate mormons, though.

Well its not me who does the hating. Perhaps you should consider the entire history of the mormon church and would be surprised to know that they have been NOT allowing blacks in churches longer than they have. Another 20 years and they will be batting .500 on the equality vs. inequality years. Thats not the point though, because they had their revalation in 1979 (20 years behind the rest of the nation) The point Im making is that in 1996 the DOMA was voted in and it does not say that states HAVE to ban gay marriage, it just says that they dont have to ALLOW it. Read it carefully California can overturn this easily with a majority vote in the future. This will happen, trust me.

 

[Vintij]

and again , i suggest you take it up with the people who passed the bill in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. i really don't care who gets married to whom.

It was not overwhelming. It was ALOT closer than prop 22. What does that tell you?

 

[del]

Well its not me who does the hating. Perhaps you should consider the entire history of the mormon church and would be surprised to know that they have been NOT allowing blacks in churches longer than they have. Another 20 years and they will be batting .500 on the equality vs. inequality years. Thats not the point though, because they had their revalation in 1979 (20 years behind the rest of the nation) The point Im making is that in 1996 the DOMA was voted in and it does not say that states HAVE to ban gay marriage, it just says that they dont have to ALLOW it. Read it carefully.

more accurately, it says that states don't have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states and that the federal govt cannot recognize gay marriage. what was your point again?