Proposition 8 passes in California
 

This has me so worked up! Its unbelieveable to me that as a law abiding citizen of the United States of America I cannot by law choose to marry someone cimply because they are the same sex as I am.:confused::confused: There's no other way to put this, IT MAKES NO SENSE and I'm damn pissed off by it! I was happy about what happened Tuesday, but there's still a long way to go believe me!:mad: I also heard that the marriages already performed there may be challenged in court as not valid.

It's ridiculous, Dave. It's a complete nobrainer.
Move to the Netherlands, you can marry anyone you love!

As a principle, this should be a common human right. On the other hand: who wants to marry anyway....? I love my girl to death, but marrying her? what's the point? We are happy together for 18 years. Unmarried.

You know what Gerald, you make a very good point. Even though I'm currently single, when I was with my ex Derek for 3 years the thing that mattered most to me was how I felt about him which is something no amendment or anything else can take from me no matter what!

This is such a touchy subject. Until the definition of marriage gets changed, nothing is going to change. Not only that, BUT, it's always going to come up as a vote...and if even the Californians have voted it down..? Makes you wonder.

I do not get how it is touchy. Looking at the situation objectively, the only issue is the religious people in the US want automatic legal rights for themselves and not other people who go against their religion.

Again, I have yet to hear one reason other than the religious argument against same sex marriage.

But and despite the clear mandate for the separation of church and state in the US Const. -- people are loathe to admit that they are forcing their religion down peoples' throats.

Put it this way, the majority of blacks and hispanics in this country (and likely many whites and Muslims) set aside their religious objections to abortion to vote for Obama. Yet, these same people hypocrticially stood on alleged piety and voted to ban gay marriage. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Let the litigation begin. I believe Prop 8 will be overturned in the courts...just like Prop 22 was after the last election.

I'm actually...
 

surprised that it passed to tell ya the truth, being that Californ-ie supposedly is the hotbed for 'liberalism'...Seems something's amiss on this vote if ya ask me.

I have, and will always, take my Mom's point of view and that is "unless someone is actually sleeping with you, it is NONE of your business what their sexual preference is - so who gives you the right to keep them from enjoying a happily married life? If you find someone to love and grow old with, isnt that what we all want? Mind your own business and allow gays/lesbians to marry..." - I think the citizens of this country should adhere to my Mom's words.

Brian "My Mom was asked once about her thoughts on lesbianism, and her reply was "I could easily be a lesbian, since most men are cheating, wife-beating scumbags...But I would have to give up the d*ck, can't do that" - I proceeded to spit my soda out on my windshield with her reply" j.

The litigation process has already started. This is the 2nd or maybe 3rd time this initiative has been voted on in CA. over past few years.

Well you're deluded, that's why you dont get why it's touchy (big wink!)

haha...you forget that you can still get married in this country with no "religious" aspect to your wedding or the ceremony officiant...

No the abortion/gay marriage thing doesnt make me wonder. It's all part of what I was saying in another thread that America seemingly has gone down a path of making the wrong choices. We continue to do so. I think sometimes we take our freedom for granted. Freedom in America doesn't necessarily mean "anything goes."

David, wouldn't a thread inclusive of the Arizona and Florida bans on same-sex marriage be apropos or are you are you just focusing on California's PROP8?

Well, no. Same Sex couples cannot do that. Without the ability to do that, same sex couples are ineligible for the legal rights automatically accorded hetero couples regarless of whether the hetero couple is married in a religious ceremony.

Moreover, same sex couples cannot contract into many of the rights automatically given to hetero couples.

Can't you see that is unfair and, more to the point, it is promoting religion as law, i.e., the establishment of a theocracy. That is just fukced up.

I think the "path of wrong choices" is cramming reilgious ideals down the throats of all Americans. There is no law that says you have to have any religious faith to be entitled to the protection of the law or even a good American citizen. We all pay the same taxes - so why shouldn't we all get the same legal protections? Again, that is just fukced up.

I do not think you would like it if the govt. made you do cr*p based on someone else's ideals or beliefs that you did not believe in :shrug: Yet, most cannot see that from any angle other than their own and most are in the power in charge.

No - freedom in America means be a Christian or be a second class citizen and take and be happy with the scraps of liberty the Christians offer you :shrug: That's just fukced up :shrug:

The black community got over this same prejudice by rioting in the streets, save for MLK, who encouraged peaceful protest :shrug:

In the end, I have yet to hear of one non religious reason why hetero married people should get special rights.

I thought the very same thing. It's just not California.
Also, this is not the first time this has been put up to vote. 4 years ago the voters of California stopped same sex "marriage."

Gay couples have all the same rights, they just can't use the word "marriage." Personally, I could care less who anyone marries, including other forbidden taboos, such as cousins, siblings and polygamists. Equality for all.

Curiously, CNN's reporting "supporters of same-sex marriage may have been hurt by the enthusiastic turnout among African-Americans for president-elect Barack Obama. CNN exit polls found black voters affirming Proposition 8 by a 70-to-30 margin. Whites and Latinos, however, were nearly evenly split."

Obviously, I am among many to find interesting that Barack wins by landslide, yet there is the conservative vote on other issues.

OT - When I watched Barack's acceptance speech, his walk along the stage and his exit, I noticed his shoulders...he now carries the loaded weight of americans hopes/dreams/expectations for the future...he is 'just a man' and, as he said, he will need the continued support/loyalty of those he carries to back him, his policies, etc.

That is just not so, though the California civil unions go, I believe, way further than most states' civil unions.

As for the comparison to "cousins, siblings and polygamists" - give me a break regarding the first two as there are medical reasons for prohibiting that. As for polygamists - I could care a less, though there is empirical evidence showing women are abused in many of these relationships - somewhat negating the consenual aspect of the relationship.

:xoxo: we meet again... ;)

Yes, California allows all benefits to a civil union that it does for marriage.

As for your other comment, it was a point, nothing more. Your answers don't make sense. You can't pick and choose who gets married if the fight was always about "equal rights for everyone." You could use the same medical excuse for gays, as they can not procreate naturally. Once you re-write the constitution to re-define a marriage between a man and a woman, things will get much more complicated. It's not that simple.

:blob2:

Hello dollface!

You ought to know better than to argue that BS around here:

A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts

—Holly Hartman

Definitions

“Same-sex marriage” means legal marriage between people of the same sex.

* Massachusetts (since 2004) and California (since 2008) issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.

* Vermont (since 2000), Connecticut (since Oct. 2005), New Jersey (since Dec. 2006), and New Hampshire (since 2007).

“Domestic partnership” is a new category of law that was created to extend rights to unmarried couples, including (but not necessarily limited to) same-sex couples.

Laws vary among states, cities, and counties. Terminology also varies; for example, Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries law.” Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level.

* Statewide laws in Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, and district-wide laws in the District of Columbia, confer certain spousal rights to same-sex couples.

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

Again, that is just fukced up.

So, a hetero couple that cannot reporduce should be barred as well?

The bottom line is if they are consenting adults and there is no risk to an unborn child a la the married cousins, who cares if people marry? What do people care if I want to marry ten women at one time if we are all consenting. But, people cannot stand that notion - the notion of someone doing something they do not approve of even though it hurts no one. Gladys Kravitz anyone :rolleyes:

Once you re-write the constitution to re-define a marriage between a man and a woman, things will get much more complicated. It's not that simple. [/QUOTE]

Yes, it is. If they are consenting adults, there should be no issue.

But, if you want to go that route, then let's take away the automatic legal benefits granted to hetero couples. Let the hetero couples be subject to the same constraints listed above. Let them, like everyone else, spend thousands of dollars to contract into some of those situations. Let them spend thousands defending those contracts in court when they are challenged. That is the sole issue in this whole matter. No one would really care if the law recognized hetero marriages if hetero marriages were not automatically granted benefits based solely on a religious ideal. But, they are while others are not. Are you actually arguing this is fair from a legal perspective or that it satisfies the sentence:

. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

U.S. Const., Art. 14, Sect. 1.

I think you know better than that.

I mean Art. 14, Sect. 1 does not have a final clause that says "unless we think Jesus wouldn't like it" :shrug:

Here is a post I made in the "election results" thread. It is relevant here.

This is why Obama was such an important win. What will now happen is same sex couples who marry in a state that allows it will try and make non allowing states recognize their marriages.

Article IV, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Const. states:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

What this means is twofold:

1. Each state must recognize a marriage performed in another state as is what happens now in hetero marriage. The plain language of the Constitution must override the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, which states:

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.

DOMA will be found Unconstitutional and overturned.

2. If a state that disallows a same sex marriage but allows a hetero marriage without providing a legitimate and, perhaps, compelling reason essentially with, perhaps, no less restrictive alternative (See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)) - the state disallowing the marriage will likely be seen as violating Article XIV, Sec. 1 (the so called "equal protection clause" ) - which states in relevant part that:

. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
____________________________________

Once The Supreme Court makes these findings, the R's most def. will then push to amend the U.S. Const. to make marriage solely between a man and a woman. Within that lang. will also be the prohibition of civil unions, which really have nothing to do with marriage.

I'd love to get Heather's (Mad4stevie) opinion on this rather fascinating Constitutional argument and the effect of the Obama justices on it.

In the end, I just cannot see why it is so important to deny same sex couples the same benefits accorded automatically by law to hetero couples. But, the majority of Christians in this country cannot let others choose their own paths. They want to impose their widely different versions Christian principles on the masses no matter the Const. prohibition against doing so.

Good point. I just thought that the California situation was the most well known of the 3 so thats why I started the thread that way. It's no problem though if you wanna discuss the otehrs here too.`

Here's my thoughts on this subject: Why do I care what you want/ do in your free time as long as you aren't pushing it on me? America is supposed to be "open-minded," that is what we are founded on, and we can't just give equality to people who only look/think like us, equality is for everybody!

You're bringing religion and faith into it, I said nothing regarding that.

When I said you can still get married in this country without a religious connotation or officiant to your ceremony I was referring to male/female marriages. I was trying to imply that though marriage GENERALLY has a religious aspect to it, it's doesnt necessarily have to if you don't want it to.

The point is, by definition, marriage = a union between a man and a woman. To seek to change that now, means you've have to change the definition of what marriage is. That's what is IS. A civil union between a man & a man or a woman/woman seems perfectly acceptable to me. But let's not call it marriage, because that's not what it is. It's outside the very simple definition of the term.

That may be unfair, but life isn't fair. And honestly, every single gay person I know in my life (including my brother) has no desire to get married. It's a small minority that actually want to marry, and for now, that right is denied to them by the majority.

Are you joking? You're actually comparing the rights of sexual preference with the rights of blacks for being African American? Let's just compare oranges and bananas while we're at it.

And no, I wouldn't like it if the government forced me to do something based on their sets of "ideals"...but we live in a nation where luckily, that hasn't happened yet. Many places in the rest of the world don't even have the freedom we have. Again, freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want.

This is a selfish nation we live in. Thousands of people that deserve life die each day, and we sit here in our arrogance trying to refute the very definitions of words that have existed for eons. For what? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals want to marry purely for the tax breaks? No, it's nothing more than a middle finger to what some believe is a "traditional value."

Once more - tell me one non-religious argument for disallowing same sex marriage, civil unions, whatever - as long as one does not get automatic rights over the other.

The answer is there is no reason other than that. So, despite what you say, it is a religious argument.

So what exactly does this have to do with one set of Americans getting automatic legal rights to the exclusion of another based solely on religion :shrug:

You can call it whatever you want as long as the rights are the same at the Federal a and other levels. But, the religious right and apparently most religious people hate it no matter what it is. To prove my point, I believe the majority of the state Const. Amendments also expressly prohibit any effects from civil unions as well. So, this argument mostly is BS.

For example, the Fla. one "invalidates any 'legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof.'" That is just wrong.

What kind of fukced up logic that. It is okay to deny equal rights to people because you and the gay people you know, which I submit may be 100 in total, do not want to get married. Come on. I am sure I could round up as many straight people who do not want to get married. Based on that, we should get rid of marriage? Give me a break.

Tell that to Matthew Shepphard when he was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die -- all for being gay. The person who found him thought he was a scarecrow.

That you defend this bigotry at all is beneath you.

That is because you are white and heterosexual. The ruling class' hubris when talking about the government's generosity is laughable most of the time.

But, to your point, it is happening now. Gay people are paying taxes on their unions that straight people do not have to pay based solely on a religious ideal. That is just wrong.

It also does not mean that religious tyranny should be allowed to happen. America was founded to get away from that. And, you can do "whatever the hell you want" as long as you are not breaking a law.

I cannot believe you actually think this. Moreover, that you think you know what all homosexuals think about marriage much less their intent in wanting equal protection is ridiculous and patently BS. I suspect you know this. In the end, if you believe this, then you are a religious bigot. If you are that, wear it proudly and do not hide behind the subterfuge of caring. And, I hope when you are treated with his level of BS, you remember that "this is a selfish nation we live in."

By the way, I am still waiting for that one non-religious reason.

[/QUOTE]

Your defense of this whole matter is completely skewed, my friend. You're using religion as your reason to fight against the definition of marriage, when all you're doing is swinging at air.

Gays have just as equal rights as they did today and yesterday. They are not being denied any basic freedoms. What you are failing to mention is that gay, and lesbian couples (civil unions) have EXACTLY the same protections under the law as married couples.

Again, you can't change the definition of something (marriage) because you simply don't like it, or it doesn't fit in with your lifestyle. Let's take Christ out of "Christmas" because you don't believe in Jesus' birth. That's the logic you're using.

Now you're bringing up matt sheppard? That was a hate crime, and had nothing to do with homosexual marriage or the topic in general.

At the end of the day, the people of California (who are generally labeled the "libs" and more than likely would've been against this proposition) have now voted TWICE on this matter now; both times with the same effect. Get the people on board, and you might make a change. Otherwise, deal with it. Like I said, life ain't fair my friend. It just ain't.

And I gave you a reason. The DEFINTION of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. THE VERY word defines what it is. That is non religious my friend. And I never said I wanted to deny homosexuals any rights. I never once said that...so labeling me a religious bigot is a little presumptuous, and frankly childish.

[QUOTE=mylittledemon;783349]
The point is, by definition, marriage = a union between a man and a woman. To seek to change that now, means you've have to change the definition of what marriage is. That's what is IS. A civil union between a man & a man or a woman/woman seems perfectly acceptable to me. But let's not call it marriage, because that's not what it is. It's outside the very simple definition of the term./QUOTE]

Marriage generaly means just a connection or bond. I think that over time we have just naturally come to accept it as the way you defined it, but I don't think that it is limited to that.

I once heard AjMcCarrell defend his opposition as more than religious by saying something about adopted children by gay couples have a higher crime rate, but you can choose whether or not you want to count that Strand.

[QUOTE=GoS;783359]Well you know what? I agree with you there, too. I know a **** ton of straight couples who have never been married...but they are married in their hearts. There's THAT kind of marriage to. Don't confuse what I'm saying with me being a proponent of man/woman unions ONLY.

What is that non-religious argument again :wavey:

But and again, I am using the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which you have yet to refute.

Utter BS --

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

If you have facts to the contrary, let's see them :shrug:

Again, I don't care what you call it as long as equal rights are given to all Americans.

As for Christ in Christmas, I agree. I think people should say Merry Christmas all they want. Some people say Happy Holidays to be inclusive of other religions as Christmas is not the only holiday at that time of year. Are you actually arguing that is a bad thing? Obviously you do not want to be inclusive.

You said my analogy to the civil rights progress of blacks was comparing apples to oranges. This shows it is not.

Again, I hope when someone takes a shiitte all over you in the name of God, you have the same attitude :rolleyes:

haha...oh Jason. I don't know what else to say to you my friend. I can argue about it until I'm blue in the face, but you'll never see it my way. Just so we're clear...my thoughts on the matter are not to imply that I would take rights away from homosexuals, blacks, or any other race or creed. I think we're all equal. I just will never call a union between a man and a man a "marriage." I can with 100% honesty tell you that my gay brother will tell you the same thing right now to your face. He would tell you "that's silly, because that's not what marriage is." So what then? Different strokes for different folks. At the end of the day, marriage will have to be redefined. Get that done and then find a way to move forward.

Again, you can call it whatever you want as long as everyone gets the same rights. That is not happening now, which is my beef with what you said.

Ok fine, I'm wrong about that. I have no problem with admitting being wrong about something. I'm not one of those guys that can't stop and ask directions. Remember, I'm not the enemy here champ.

PS...wasnt the 14 Amendment in reference to slaves and African Americans?

It was. But, it applies to all Americans and to many other issues than that.

Here is what it says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

For those interested - here is a fairly good discussion on the 14th Amend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

About all I'm going to say to this is that if I found out that anyone I personally knew voted for one of these amendments, my relationship with them would be over.

Whew...is that worth the strife?

And you changed your avatar!!

Well, there's no strife if I just don't have anything to do with them. :D

Somebody else on here took my avatar, so I switched it. I think this one suits me so much better anyway. :lol:

I tend to agree.


It is rather hard to ignore that someone you call a good friend (have over to your house, etc. ) considers you a second class citizen. I am not saying it can't be done. But, it would be hard to reconcile that bigotry unless you thought you could make them see that this is bigotry, writing hate into the Const., etc. Most people think it is just gays being uppity. They do not get the second class citizen part and/or think gays can contract into the same level of protection, etc. - which, of course, they cannot.

Brandon, one of these days ask your brother if he prefers to be gay, or if he just IS.

Sexual orientation isn't a preference. Yes, some people "dabble" or "experiment," but those of us who truly are gay didn't choose to be.

I meant to say sexual orientation...I can see how that sounded wrong. And I also didn't mean to imply that my brother's stance represents everybody that's gay. My apologies there, too.

We may have to flog you before you go :wavey:

I love your signature. God, strand, you make me smile.

Also --

New Zealand does not yet allow same-sex marriage proper, but allows civil unions that provide virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. However, there are no obstacles to eventual reform such as statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage, as is the case due to statutory and constitutional enactments within much of the United States, as well as Australia.

On immigration to New Zealand, couples that have same-sex marriages from countries that allow them may have their marriages recognised as a de facto partnership, but only specific forms of overseas registered partnerships are recognised as the legal equivalent of a New Zealand civil union. As of 2005, this only concerns registered partnerships from Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the US states of Vermont and New Jersey.[1] Adoptions by same-sex couples are also not legal, although debate continues about eventual legislative reform in this area.

During the 2005 election, Prime Minister Helen Clark admitted that she thought it was discriminatory to exclude same-sex couples from the Marriage Act 1955, but said she would not push to change it.[2]

On July 2, 2007, George Ireland of Auckland's Milne Ireland Walker legal firm was asked for his opinion on current matters related to same-sex marriage in Sweden, which may result in LGBT access to fully fledged marriage as opposed to the parallel spousal rights and responsibilities legislation that allows for civil unions, which have existed there since the early nineties. He suggested that given the New Zealand Labour Party-led government's strong record on rights for LGBT New Zealanders, such change would probably occur. Former Destiny New Zealand party president Richard Lewis agreed, from a negative and social conservative perspective.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...in_New_Zealand

:wavey: