California Marriage law- Not really anti-gay

[seth1492]

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!

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

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?

 

[Shogun]

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.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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?

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.

 

[Larkinn]

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!

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.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[Shogun]

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.

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..

 

[Larkinn]

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..

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.

 

[Shogun]

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...

 

[George Vreeland]

When two people get married, it is because they love each other.
They want to be together in a bond that makes them one with each other forever.
It is a wonderful thing to have such a bond.
It is special.
It is love.
When a man and a woman get married, no one blinks an eye.
If two men or two women do the same, then many people do not approve.
They claim that it is not right or that it soils the real meaning of marriage.
What is the real meaning of marriage?
The answer to that question is in line one of this article.
It is because they love each other.
Does it matter if the couple is gay or straight?
Should it matter?
No!
After all, why should it.
Gays want their equal rights and among those equal rights is the right to be married.
I agree with wanting equal rights.
We are all people which means we are all the same.
It does not matter if someone is gay, white, black, a man, a woman, tall, short, young, old or whatever.
We all want our equal rights.
That is our right.
However, we need to go beyond equal rights when it comes to gay marriage.
Society needs to understand that any marriage is not about the right to be married.
It is about wanting to be married as a loving couple.
Love is not something that should be decided on by voters.
It is not a court issue either.
It should not be an issue at all.
Marriage is between two people in love.
It is not between two people, the voters, the courts and anyone else who has an opinion.
Gay marriage does not bring down the meaning of marriage.
It makes the true meaning of marriage even better.
That is what love does.
It makes things better.
Society has come a long way in the last fifty years in terms of equality, but we still have a long way to go.
It is a shame that love is something that needs to be fought for.
I am not gay, but I am the same as you as you are to me.
May love conquer all.

George Vreeland Hill

 

[Intense]

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.

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.

No One should be Forced to Act against Their Faith, even if Legal, You should however not obstruct others from doing what they need to do within the Law.

 

[George Costanza]

People who truly are supportive of any minority in our society, do not come out in favor of programs that are detrimental to the involved minority, nor are they opposed to programs that are beneficial to the involved minority.

That's why I always have to shake my head every time I see someone saying something like, "Personally, I have nothing against gay people, BUT . . . ," and then comes the red herring, hypocritical, hidden agenda, supposed justification for being against gay marriage.

 

[Intense]

People who truly are supportive of any minority in our society, do not come out in favor of programs that are detrimental to the involved minority, nor are they opposed to programs that are beneficial to the involved minority.

That's why I always have to shake my head every time I see someone saying something like, "Personally, I have nothing against gay people, BUT . . . ," and then comes the red herring, hypocritical, hidden agenda, supposed justification for being against gay marriage.

Still We are a Nation of Laws. Effecting those Laws is a Process. One Step at at time, by design. The one Mind you Each has a Right to is His Own. One want's Respect, One learns to give Respect, even in disagreement. Personally, I support Civil Union, rather than Gay Marriage. Were Civil Union become the Law of the Land, and the kinks worked out, I would assume Gay Marriage to be the next step. One is neither higher or Lower for Agreeing or Disagreeing with this position. Being True to Your own Conscience is the issue, not conformity. By the way, it is the majority you are trying to conform.