Vote doesn't go the way you want, split the state in two!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: uli2000
Whatever you believe about Prop. 8, the will of the voters has spoken. How come when things dont go your way, sue untill you get it. And splitting California? OMG, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
One of the beauties of living in this great country is the ability to take on any issue or grievance in a civilized court of law. I welcome and appreciate anyone who chooses to use the system properly to effect change, rather than turning to a violent or criminal alternative.

In other words, they're merely exercising their right to challenge the system civilly. I would never consider such lawsuits to be frivolous in nature. They're even allowed to do so as many times as they feel like!

It's their right.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,075
6,885
136
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: uli2000
Whatever you believe about Prop. 8, the will of the voters has spoken. How come when things dont go your way, sue untill you get it.

You missed the point on liberalism completely (classically speaking). The majority cannot use its power to trample on the rights of the minority, which has been done in this case. Remember, it was the "will of the voters" to have slaves, segregation, etc... at one point in time.

Entering into a state-sponsored marriage is not a right of living in the United States.

No one (except for some of the crazy bible-folks) wants to disrupt the lives of gays or disrupt their civil rights. Refusing to change the definition of marriage to incorporate gays is another story though.

Classical liberalism also contains the harm principle - if what you're doing does not affect anyone else, you should be free to do it. How does two gay people getting married affect you? Are you suddenly going to abandon your wife and marry your gay neighbour because you just can't resist since gay marriage was legalized? I just don't see how you'd be changing the definition of marriage that much. It won't change individuals' marriages - they'll still be man and woman, there will also be just man and man, or woman and woman.

I would say that entering a state-sponsored marriage is a right of living in the US, seeing as how marriage is written into so many of our secular laws.
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
I would say that entering a state-sponsored marriage is a right of living in the US, seeing as how marriage is written into so many of our secular laws.
And that confounding of the religious institution of holy matrimony, non-denominational marriages, "civil unions", and secular laws is the basis for much of the controversy. The solution I'd like to see is the removal of any mention of holy matrimony or marriage from our laws. The only relationships the government should recognize are civil unions. If a man and a woman wish to have their lives joined under the eyes of God, they're more than welcome to go to a church and have that done. But if they want to have that relationship recognized by the secular laws of the land, that man and woman need to get a civil union.

If civil unions are good enough for homosexuals, they're good enough for heterosexuals.
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: uli2000
Whatever you believe about Prop. 8, the will of the voters has spoken. How come when things dont go your way, sue untill you get it.

You missed the point on liberalism completely (classically speaking). The majority cannot use its power to trample on the rights of the minority, which has been done in this case. Remember, it was the "will of the voters" to have slaves, segregation, etc... at one point in time.

Entering into a state-sponsored marriage is not a right of living in the United States.

No one (except for some of the crazy bible-folks) wants to disrupt the lives of gays or disrupt their civil rights. Refusing to change the definition of marriage to incorporate gays is another story though.

Classical liberalism also contains the harm principle - if what you're doing does not affect anyone else, you should be free to do it. How does two gay people getting married affect you? Are you suddenly going to abandon your wife and marry your gay neighbour because you just can't resist since gay marriage was legalized? I just don't see how you'd be changing the definition of marriage that much. It won't change individuals' marriages - they'll still be man and woman, there will also be just man and man, or woman and woman.

I would say that entering a state-sponsored marriage is a right of living in the US, seeing as how marriage is written into so many of our secular laws.

Redefining marriage doesn't bother me that much (I don't like it but I could deal with it) but it worries me what it could lead to. I don't know how far people want to take it, but will this not eventually lead to adoption of kids by married gay couples? I think if you eliminate any barrier between normal/gay relationships and consider both as marriage, then you bring it into a higher level of acceptance that may encourage it further. What will young kids think as they see getting married.... they will think that it is normal and a part of life (which it is not, I believe it is genetic but it is definitely not normal). And what happens when married gay couples decide that it is their right to adopt children?

I think that a "seperate, but equal" kind of idea should be enforced in regards to homo/hetero couples. There is no reason that gay couples cannot be together, but there should be some distinction between that and heterosexual marriage.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,899
11,289
136
When it comes to Prop 8, they won't be able to divide the state by red & blue. Many, many voters who chose Obama over McCain also voted YES on Prop 8.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...8/11/05/MNH413UTUS.DTL

"Californians voted their religion, not their political party, when they pushed Proposition 8 to victory and banned same-sex marriage in the state, campaign officials and political experts said Wednesday.

With 100 percent of the state's precincts reporting, Prop. 8 leads by more than half a million votes, 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent. Experts don't expect an estimated 3 million uncounted mail and provisional ballots to alter the outcome.

"The result shows that this wasn't a partisan issue for people," said Frank Schubert, who ran the Prop. 8 campaign. "People have a strong attachment to traditional marriage, and that's the way they voted."

While exit polls showed that 59 percent of Catholics backed Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, they turned around and voted for Prop. 8 by 64 percent to 36 percent.

The exit polls showed that the one-third of Tuesday's voters who attended church weekly supported the measure by an overwhelming 84 percent to 16 percent, compared with the 83 percent opposition from the one-fifth of voters who said they never attend religious observances.

"What the exit polls say is that religion trumps party affiliation when it comes to social issues," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. The exit poll was done by Edison Media Research.

It also trumped racial identification. While Obama publicly backed the "No on Prop. 8" effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation's first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8, exit polls showed.

It was a grim evening Tuesday in San Francisco for supporters of same-sex marriage, who saw Prop. 8 move into the lead minutes after the polls closed and stay ahead all night. Except in the Bay Area and a smattering of other counties, the measure was approved in three-fourths of the state's 58 counties, including Democratic strongholds such as Los Angeles and Sacramento counties.

On Wednesday, Prop. 8 opponents tried to put the best face on an election they never really expected to lose, vowing not to concede until every ballot is counted.

"There are still a lot of uncounted ballots out there, but we realize it's a very steep climb," said a subdued Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California and a leader in the campaign against Prop. 8. "But so much is at stake when you're talking about fundamental rights and people's families, we have to wait to see those ballots."

Secretary of State Debra Bowen will release the statewide list of uncounted ballots today. But with an estimated 3 million ballots outstanding, the "no" side would have to grab 58 percent of those remaining votes to move into a tie, a far higher percentage than they received in all but a handful of California counties.

The 52 percent support for Prop. 8 is well below the 61 percent backing of Proposition 22, the same-sex marriage ban approved by California voters in 2000 that was overturned by the state Supreme Court in May.

That change shows there's hope for voter approval of same-sex marriage in the future, Kors said.

"We have lots of work to do to combat prejudice and discrimination," he added. "The lies the other side told about who gay people are are the same lies that Anita Bryant told 30 years ago," when she helped persuade voters to overturn an anti-discrimination ordinance in Miami and in an unsuccessful effort to ban gays and lesbians from teaching in California schools.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom echoed the disappointment at a City Hall news conference Wednesday, saying the result "doesn't make me proud."

"For those who are celebrating their success ... don't be gleeful at the expense of human beings whose lives have been devastated by your point of view," he said.

Opponents of Prop. 8 already have filed court actions to overturn the vote, arguing that the vote isn't enough to take the right to marry from gay and lesbian couples. An attorney for Prop. 8 supporters called the legal action "frivolous and regrettable."

Prop. 8 wasn't the only victory for backers of traditional marriage Tuesday. Constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman also passed in Florida and Arizona, running the record of foes of same-sex marriage to 30-1 in ballot contests across the nation. The lone loss was in Arizona in 2006.

"This is a great day for marriage," Ron Prentice, chairman of the Prop. 8 campaign, said Wednesday in a statement declaring victory. "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution."

How long the victory will last is anybody's guess, especially in a state where the Constitution can be changed by any group with money enough to qualify a ballot measure and attract support from 50 percent plus one of California's voters.

"This fight is far from over ... and it's not unlikely that we'll see a group go to the ballot in the future in an attempt to enshrine the right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution," said Kim Buchanan, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California. "It's not going to be an easy battle, though, because there are committed people on both sides."


This one may have been somewhat slightly influenced by partisan politics, but it was decided by the churchers.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Originally posted by: Farang
I don't know about California but it can make sense sometimes.. Washington state needs to be split in two

WA would be easy to split since the west side of the mountains is largely urban/blue while the east side is mostly farmland/red.

I personally don't care, but I know a lot of people, especially on the east side, would like to split the state.

Notice that Spokane County went for Obama! Even the rednecks are fed up with the Rebub incompetence. I have had an Obama/Biden sticker on my car for 3 weeks and haven't even had one round through the body of it. Shows the times they are a changin!
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Farang

California owns the United States. Sort of like chopping your head off because you've got a pimple.

yes, thanks for spreading your ridiculous housing problems through the whole rest of the country
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,899
11,289
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Farang

California owns the United States. Sort of like chopping your head off because you've got a pimple.

yes, thanks for spreading your ridiculous housing problems through the whole rest of the country

what? You're trying to blame GREED on Kahleeforneeya?

I got news for ya pal...greed is everywhere.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: uli2000
Whatever you believe about Prop. 8, the will of the voters has spoken. How come when things dont go your way, sue untill you get it.

You missed the point on liberalism completely (classically speaking). The majority cannot use its power to trample on the rights of the minority, which has been done in this case. Remember, it was the "will of the voters" to have slaves, segregation, etc... at one point in time.

Entering into a state-sponsored marriage is not a right of living in the United States.

No one (except for some of the crazy bible-folks) wants to disrupt the lives of gays or disrupt their civil rights. Refusing to change the definition of marriage to incorporate gays is another story though.

Classical liberalism also contains the harm principle - if what you're doing does not affect anyone else, you should be free to do it. How does two gay people getting married affect you? Are you suddenly going to abandon your wife and marry your gay neighbour because you just can't resist since gay marriage was legalized? I just don't see how you'd be changing the definition of marriage that much. It won't change individuals' marriages - they'll still be man and woman, there will also be just man and man, or woman and woman.

I would say that entering a state-sponsored marriage is a right of living in the US, seeing as how marriage is written into so many of our secular laws.

Redefining marriage doesn't bother me that much (I don't like it but I could deal with it) but it worries me what it could lead to. I don't know how far people want to take it, but will this not eventually lead to adoption of kids by married gay couples? I think if you eliminate any barrier between normal/gay relationships and consider both as marriage, then you bring it into a higher level of acceptance that may encourage it further. What will young kids think as they see getting married.... they will think that it is normal and a part of life (which it is not, I believe it is genetic but it is definitely not normal). And what happens when married gay couples decide that it is their right to adopt children?

I think that a "seperate, but equal" kind of idea should be enforced in regards to homo/hetero couples. There is no reason that gay couples cannot be together, but there should be some distinction between that and heterosexual marriage.

Separate but equal is not equal. Go read Brown vs. Board of Education.

What is the problem with children learning that there can be different kinds of relationships? And why shouldn't gay couples be able to adopt children if they can provide a loving, and caring upbringing?
Your logic makes little sense unless it is religious based. And if it is religiously based then quit trying to force your religion on others.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,075
6,885
136
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Redefining marriage doesn't bother me that much (I don't like it but I could deal with it) but it worries me what it could lead to. I don't know how far people want to take it, but will this not eventually lead to adoption of kids by married gay couples? I think if you eliminate any barrier between normal/gay relationships and consider both as marriage, then you bring it into a higher level of acceptance that may encourage it further. What will young kids think as they see getting married.... they will think that it is normal and a part of life (which it is not, I believe it is genetic but it is definitely not normal). And what happens when married gay couples decide that it is their right to adopt children?

I think that a "seperate, but equal" kind of idea should be enforced in regards to homo/hetero couples. There is no reason that gay couples cannot be together, but there should be some distinction between that and heterosexual marriage.

Separate but equal is not equal. Go read Brown vs. Board of Education.

What is the problem with children learning that there can be different kinds of relationships? And why shouldn't gay couples be able to adopt children if they can provide a loving, and caring upbringing?
Your logic makes little sense unless it is religious based. And if it is religiously based then quit trying to force your religion on others.

Because the kids might catch 'the gay' and be societal outcasts.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
I would say that entering a state-sponsored marriage is a right of living in the US, seeing as how marriage is written into so many of our secular laws.
And that confounding of the religious institution of holy matrimony, non-denominational marriages, "civil unions", and secular laws is the basis for much of the controversy. The solution I'd like to see is the removal of any mention of holy matrimony or marriage from our laws. The only relationships the government should recognize are civil unions. If a man and a woman wish to have their lives joined under the eyes of God, they're more than welcome to go to a church and have that done. But if they want to have that relationship recognized by the secular laws of the land, that man and woman need to get a civil union.

If civil unions are good enough for homosexuals, they're good enough for heterosexuals.
I agree with this. I'm sure the religious right would find some reason to complain, though. I don't think this has anything to do with protecting marriage, but rather disenfranchising gay couples.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
WHEN WILL US CITIZENS BE PROTECED FROM RELIGION

Nodody ANYWHERE in America should have ANY right whatsoever to say that two humans cannot get married

God will punish the people who hurt others in his name
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: uli2000
Whatever you believe about Prop. 8, the will of the voters has spoken. How come when things dont go your way, sue untill you get it. And splitting California? OMG, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
One of the beauties of living in this great country is the ability to take on any issue or grievance in a civilized court of law. I welcome and appreciate anyone who chooses to use the system properly to effect change, rather than turning to a violent or criminal alternative.

In other words, they're merely exercising their right to challenge the system civilly. I would never consider such lawsuits to be frivolous in nature. They're even allowed to do so as many times as they feel like!

It's their right.


OMG.. THANK YOU..

They also don't have FIFTEEN MILLION RELIGIOUS DOLLARS to protect themelves with

I hope the Feds jump in and FINE the Mormon Adulterers for all that money they used to affect the outcome of this situation for their religions benefit
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
I would say that entering a state-sponsored marriage is a right of living in the US, seeing as how marriage is written into so many of our secular laws.
And that confounding of the religious institution of holy matrimony, non-denominational marriages, "civil unions", and secular laws is the basis for much of the controversy. The solution I'd like to see is the removal of any mention of holy matrimony or marriage from our laws. The only relationships the government should recognize are civil unions. If a man and a woman wish to have their lives joined under the eyes of God, they're more than welcome to go to a church and have that done. But if they want to have that relationship recognized by the secular laws of the land, that man and woman need to get a civil union.

If civil unions are good enough for homosexuals, they're good enough for heterosexuals.
I agree with this. I'm sure the religious right would find some reason to complain, though. I don't think this has anything to do with protecting marriage, but rather disenfranchising gay couples.

If they wanted to protect marriage then they wouldn't be getting divorced more often than gay couples..lol
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Farang

California owns the United States. Sort of like chopping your head off because you've got a pimple.

yes, thanks for spreading your ridiculous housing problems through the whole rest of the country

what? You're trying to blame GREED on Kahleeforneeya?

I got news for ya pal...greed is everywhere.

but interest only 'mortgages' sure as hell aren't
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
I think that all this proves is how bad of an idea it was to offer Prop 8 at all. Same goes for Prop 2 in FL.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
I think that all this proves is how bad of an idea it was to offer Prop 8 at all. Same goes for Prop 2 in FL.

I disagree. The fact that it's controversial doesn't mean it shouldn't have been established. You could say the same for Roe v. Wade.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: uli2000

How well will that work out? The blue zones will have all the money..

Hey, I like the way that-
but the red zones will have all ... the guns.

..shit

No worries, ILM can whip up a hell of a special effects storm, maybe some Voice of God stuff.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: CPA
But how would we get 51 stars properly lined up on the flag. I've got a better idea - disown California completely from the United States. You can evenly spread the stars 7 by 7. Two birds killed with one stone.

i could think of states that are much less worthy of being in the union, and regardless, this sort of discussion about kicking cities and states out of the union because you don't like them (i bet you have some very well thought out and well developed arguments for it too :roll:) is pathetic, and clearly a sign of a small mind and a lack of patriotism.
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: CPA
But how would we get 51 stars properly lined up on the flag. I've got a better idea - disown California completely from the United States. You can evenly spread the stars 7 by 7. Two birds killed with one stone.

How about 50 stars and a rainbow :p
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: CPA
But how would we get 51 stars properly lined up on the flag. I've got a better idea - disown California completely from the United States. You can evenly spread the stars 7 by 7. Two birds killed with one stone.

i could think of states that are much less worthy of being in the union, and regardless, this sort of discussion about kicking cities and states out of the union because you don't like them (i bet you have some very well thought out and well developed arguments for it too :roll:) is pathetic, and clearly a sign of a small mind and a lack of patriotism.

clearly someone had his funny bone removed
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,591
3,425
136
Originally posted by: Extelleron
but will this not eventually lead to adoption of kids by married gay couples?

I couldn't tell from the way you worded it, but I just want to make sure you know they can already adopt kids. Just an FYI.