Prop 8

[abaez]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

The people of CA want it kept traditional. They are not killing or hurting anyone, they are granting them the same rights as they have in marriage without the name. Point is, the people of CA have spoken twice. It's time the judiciary branch stop working out of class.

Whose traditions are you talking about? Not religious, because some religions do allow gay marriage. Not Californian, because California's tradition for the past few months has been to allow gay marriage. Not American, because some states do allow gay marriage.


California has amended its Constitution to deny equal rights to a group of people. That is a disgrace.

Right. Let's ignore California's 150+ year tradition of maintaining marraige as it has existed through human history, and only focus on a few months. Let's focus on the 3 or 4 states that allow for gay marraige and ignore the 40+ that do not.

Humans throughout history have owned slaves - did that make it right? Hell, they weren't even a full human in our eyes barely 200 years ago.

Things change.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Is marriage not, by definition, a spiritual union?

it is not. marriage in our culture is a civil contract, and for same-sex couples, it's a focal point amid the things that go along with it, like insurance, adoption, partners being able to visit each other in the hospital, pass down property after their death without needing a will, etc.

It's a crap shoot. When I was very young, I was appalled and outraged when I understood that there were arranged marriages in other cultures. Now, I bet they produce about the same results as any other.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Can you please say or explain how sex between same sex is a natural act. If its not a natural act. Than its a sickness carried in the geno or learned.. Like many other geno related sickness.

Can you please explain why it's any of your business what other creative, contributing, law abiding, loving coupled do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Would you encourage the spread of other deficient geno sicknesses. Gay is a sickness . Its NOT NORMAL . THERE for its ABBY NORMAL- and is GAY. and a sickness that should be wiped out.

No, BIGOTRY is a sickness, and you are one very sick puppy.

Not the people just the ones that claim its in there genes. Let them live together but niether partner should be allowed to reproduce possiably another geno sick being. If man can't handle what in his pants I question his intelligance.

Have you checked your spelling and punctuation? Trust me on this because you won't be able to understand it, let alone formulate a cohesive reply. It's your own intellect you should be questioning. :laugh:

But since we know the majority of people alive today live on the darkside they make arguments based only on other like thinkers arguments The Acadimic community is a joke. . But to make their arguments work . They have to kill GOD First.

Why does God have to die first.?

That assumes any such god ever existed. I do not accept your premise.

So evil people can call there actions good. IF God exist. Aborting child is murder. If God exist unnatural gay is a sin against God. IF Christ was. Than a Christian by Christ words can't kill. AT NO time did Christ say War was an exception. YA see if you believe truely. Nothing can scare you or hurt you. Because you really can't wait to meet the creator. Can you Imagine a country of true Christians. A one man army in princphel could wipe them out. So ya see why Ceasar setup the HRCC the way he did. They managed to make killing in gods name OK LOL. Or ONE NATION Under GOD. Thats what PAUL contributed. He changed the meaning of what Christ said. THATS FOBIDDEN.

So called "christians" who attempt to justify their bigotry with such bullshit are a good reason to root for the Lions.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
procreate. There is strength in numbers. That is what the rest of us do.

Did you fail sex ed class?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: Ozoned
procreate. There is strength in numbers. That is what the rest of us do.

Did you fail sex ed class?

Sarcasm meter broken?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Can you please say or explain how sex between same sex is a natural act.

Actually homosexual behavior has been seen in nature. You can witness it in mice and rats. But you are a bigot and a fool and I won't "debate" with your ignorance.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Can you please say or explain how sex between same sex is a natural act. If its not a natural act. Than its a sickness carried in the geno or learned.. Like many other geno related sickness.

Can you please explain why it's any of your business what other creative, contributing, law abiding, loving coupled do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Would you encourage the spread of other deficient geno sicknesses. Gay is a sickness . Its NOT NORMAL . THERE for its ABBY NORMAL- and is GAY. and a sickness that should be wiped out.

No, BIGOTRY is a sickness, and you are one very sick puppy.

Not the people just the ones that claim its in there genes. Let them live together but niether partner should be allowed to reproduce possiably another geno sick being. If man can't handle what in his pants I question his intelligance.

Have you checked your spelling and punctuation? Trust me on this because you won't be able to understand it, let alone formulate a cohesive reply. It's your own intellect you should be questioning. :laugh:

But since we know the majority of people alive today live on the darkside they make arguments based only on other like thinkers arguments The Acadimic community is a joke. . But to make their arguments work . They have to kill GOD First.

Why does God have to die first.?

That assumes any such god ever existed. I do not accept your premise.

So evil people can call there actions good. IF God exist. Aborting child is murder. If God exist unnatural gay is a sin against God. IF Christ was. Than a Christian by Christ words can't kill. AT NO time did Christ say War was an exception. YA see if you believe truely. Nothing can scare you or hurt you. Because you really can't wait to meet the creator. Can you Imagine a country of true Christians. A one man army in princphel could wipe them out. So ya see why Ceasar setup the HRCC the way he did. They managed to make killing in gods name OK LOL. Or ONE NATION Under GOD. Thats what PAUL contributed. He changed the meaning of what Christ said. THATS FOBIDDEN.

So called "christians" who attempt to justify their bigotry with such bullshit are a good reason to root for the Lions.

You have to tolerate the bigots. You have no choice.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: Ozoned
procreate. There is strength in numbers. That is what the rest of us do.

Did you fail sex ed class?

Sarcasm meter broken?

What's a sarcasm meter? And, how do you break one? How can one be tested to see if it's in good working order?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

You have to tolerate the bigots. You have no choice.

Yeah, I know. The First Amendment guarantees their right to advertise their stupidity. Fortunately, it also gives me the right to speak out against it.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
If gay "Unions" get the same legal rights as straight "Marriages", why do people feel the need to keep pushing for gay "Marriage"?

Using your logic, why have state-sanctioned marriage at all? Within your religion, you could go through any ceremony you saw fit to, but the state would have no part in it. Why should people who marry be taxed differently by the IRS than people who don't?

Either EVERY citizen in the United States of America has the same access to state sanctioned marriage as every other citizen or the government gets out of this business entirely -- both work for me.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: OrByte
imho here is how it goes and I hope someone smarter than I will support or rebuke this:

Either the SC allows equal treatment in state law or it allows this amendment to be attached to the constitution...which would then remove equal treatment and equal protection under the law.

The state constitution can't go both ways.

Looking at this from a heirarchy of importance; equal protection will trump this amendment.

Otherwise every other subgroup of the state citizenry (im thinking elderly, vets, disabled, black, mexican, native indian etc etc etc) may lose equal protection...or at the very least you will see a TON of lawsuits filed to remove said protections.

just my thoughts.

Technically the law IS being applied equally, the sticking point has to do with the gender of people involved, they can't be the same.

Laws concerning the differences in gender have been allowed to stand; i.e. selective service.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: quikah

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Did you even pay attention to how shamefully the Prop 8 campaign was conducted? It was disgusting. The Mormon Church shoveled the BS so high that I'm sure most voters had no idea what was going on. Plus, the Prop is illegal under both the California and US Constitution.

The proposition is 14 words long. You would have to be an illiterate imbecile to not know what was going on.

I swear it was that BS about schools teaching kids about gay marriage that put prop 8 over the top. And of course, it was complete horsecrap, but voters are notoriously uninformed, and enough FUD, especially when it involves their kids (gasp! won't anyone think of the kids!), is enough to make them worry.

I can't tell you how many voters I personally talked with who were vastly (A) uninformed, or (B) mis-informed, when it came to either Obama's proposed policies, or state props like 8.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: quikah

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Did you even pay attention to how shamefully the Prop 8 campaign was conducted? It was disgusting. The Mormon Church shoveled the BS so high that I'm sure most voters had no idea what was going on. Plus, the Prop is illegal under both the California and US Constitution.

The proposition is 14 words long. You would have to be an illiterate imbecile to not know what was going on.

I swear it was that BS about schools teaching kids about gay marriage that put prop 8 over the top. And of course, it was complete horsecrap, but voters are notoriously uninformed, and enough FUD, especially when it involves their kids (gasp! won't anyone think of the kids!), is enough to make them worry.

I can't tell you how many voters I personally talked with who were vastly (A) uninformed, or (B) mis-informed, when it came to either Obama's proposed policies, or state props like 8.

The ignorant probably believe you can catch the gay that way.

 

[KK]

I never did like those liberal jackasses in CA, this just proves how hypocritical they are.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zoiks
I voted for it.

What gave you the moral right to discrimnate against gay people's equality? What gives you the right not to have people vote against your right to marry?

What gave him the right?
How about the US government? See the US is a republic based on democratic principles such as a citizen?s RIGHT to vote.
zoiks used his RIGHT to vote on who gets to partake in a PRIVILAGE known as marriage.

There is nothing stopping the electorate to bring up a ban on heterosexual marriage but I don't think a ban on heterosexual marriage would pass. Just a hunch.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
So... majority rule no longer counts, huh? It's obvious this is something the people of CA do not want as it has been banned 1, overturned by the courts, and then banned again. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't make this country to have laws made by the courts, only upheld. The people have re-written the law, the court must follow it.

The founding fathers made sure the majority couldn't control the minority through the electoral college... Besides, with your reasoning, slavery would still be in place and women wouldn't be able to vote..

Outlawing slavery, granting minority and womens voter rights were amended to our constitution in the 13th,14th,15th, and 19th amendments. They werent invalidated by the courts.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But regardless of what a small majority of Californians think, this kind of thing isn't supposed to be what America is about.

According to who? You?

That's right. This isn't a debate about gay marriage, it's a debate about whether or not the government is your personal tool for making society believe the same things you believe. The idea that we should be able to live by our own beliefs, regardless of how our fellow citizens feel, is implicit in our founding documents. Freedom of speech and religion were spelled out specifically because there were the most important personal choice issues at the time, but it seems pretty clear what the general idea was.

Except you do that all the time. Look at the failed 'war on poverty'.

I don't see the comparison.

The right to speak doesn't give you the right to be heard. The right to engage on sodomy doesn't entitle you to have that relationship recognized by society.

It is not a "right to engage on sodomy", it's a right to have the same rights as everyone else, even if you make a personal choice that society doesn't like. You've proving my point by refusing to separate "society" from "government" when you're talking about gay rights. Society and the people in it don't have to like gay marriage, that doesn't mean they can make a law prohibiting it. Similarly, a law allowing gay marriage isn't forcing "society" to recognize a gay relationship, it's making it a LEGAL status.

As I said, the problem here is really the inability of people to separate their personal views from what they want government to do. You are arguing for government judgement passed on gay relationships because a majority of society doesn't like them, never once considering that maybe society can disagree with gay marriage without the government being required to make it illegal. From the party of "small government", I'm amazed the idea hasn't occurred to you folks before. Government just small enough to fit into your bedroom, indeed.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: brandonbull
If gay "Unions" get the same legal rights as straight "Marriages", why do people feel the need to keep pushing for gay "Marriage"?

Using your logic, why have state-sanctioned marriage at all? Within your religion, you could go through any ceremony you saw fit to, but the state would have no part in it. Why should people who marry be taxed differently by the IRS than people who don't?

Either EVERY citizen in the United States of America has the same access to state sanctioned marriage as every other citizen or the government gets out of this business entirely -- both work for me.

The government is involved in too many things. If most of society feels a "marriage" is between a man and a woman, then I guess that's what that is.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

The people of CA want it kept traditional. They are not killing or hurting anyone, they are granting them the same rights as they have in marriage without the name. Point is, the people of CA have spoken twice. It's time the judiciary branch stop working out of class.

Whose traditions are you talking about? Not religious, because some religions do allow gay marriage. Not Californian, because California's tradition for the past few months has been to allow gay marriage. Not American, because some states do allow gay marriage.


California has amended its Constitution to deny equal rights to a group of people. That is a disgrace.

Right. Let's ignore California's 150+ year tradition of maintaining marraige as it has existed through human history, and only focus on a few months. Let's focus on the 3 or 4 states that allow for gay marraige and ignore the 40+ that do not.

Marriage hasn't been a man and a woman through human history, and even if it were, that is not enough reason to deny equal rights to a class of people.

The tradition of equality is older than California's or any state's tradition of inequality.

 

[Infohawk]

The whole point of a Constitution is that it is supreme. Trying to use the courts to circumvent the constitution is democratically dishonest. Pro-gay-marriage people need to wait and try and convince the electorate for the next round of measures.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
So... majority rule no longer counts, huh? It's obvious this is something the people of CA do not want as it has been banned 1, overturned by the courts, and then banned again. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't make this country to have laws made by the courts, only upheld. The people have re-written the law, the court must follow it.

The founding fathers made sure the majority couldn't control the minority through the electoral college... Besides, with your reasoning, slavery would still be in place and women wouldn't be able to vote..

Outlawing slavery, granting minority and womens voter rights were amended to our constitution in the 13th,14th,15th, and 19th amendments. They werent invalidated by the courts.

That doesn't make ZeroIQ right when he claims that the court should be barred from striking down laws that conflict with the constitution. The people of California enacted a proposition in 2000 that conflicted with their state constitution. ZeroIQ is incorrect in saying that the court was making the law instead of upholding it. They interpreted the constitution as being in conflict with the law passed in 2000. Since changing the constitution requires, as you noted, an amendment, simply passing a law is NOT enough to "ban" gay marriage. The proposition in 2000 was struck down, and the current one will be as well. If the people of CA really don't want gay marriage, they'll have to amend their constitution. Blame the courts all you want, but they are doing their job.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
The whole point of a Constitution is that it is supreme. Trying to use the courts to circumvent the constitution is democratically dishonest. Pro-gay-marriage people need to wait and try and convince the electorate for the next round of measures.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution protects gay marriage. Unless you can come up with a better legal argument, you're the one being "democratically dishonest".

 

[ICRS]

During this pivital election, S.F residents decide to NOT go to the ballot and make sure the rights of homosexuals are not taken away. The year with what has to be the most important state measure in the last 20 years, they decide to not vote. This year marks one of the LOWEST voter turnout in S.F history during a presidental election year. Shows you how much they really cared about gay rights.


----------------------------------------
Merge Point

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[SergeC]

The current prop amends the constitution of the state of CA, though. It doesn't just pass a law.

I cannot believe people here in CA voted for this abomination :/

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: SergeC
The current prop amends the constitution of the state of CA, though. It doesn't just pass a law.

I cannot believe people here in CA voted for this abomination :/

There is actually a legal argument that it "revises" the constitution instead of just amending it, which is a different thing under California law. If that was the case, the amendment would be invalid and would have to go through revision channels to become law.