Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes

NW747400 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:09 pm

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 14):
I wonder how many of the people who voted yes 'because the old testament says that sort of thing is wrong ' have ever eaten pork , or shellfish ( both banned in Leviticus) or consumed a cheeseburger ( breaking the old testament prohibition on mixing dairy and meat ) or worn a polycotton shirt ( wrong in so many ways aside from just the OT prohibition on mixing different types of fabric )

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible. It is true the Old Testament says this, however the new covenant that Jesus established before he left earth does not contain many of the Old Testament rules. It does however contain many passages that still assert homosexuality is a sin. So saying that it is only in the Old Testament and comparable to other Old Testament rules is just wrong.

Quoting Slider (Reply 27):
Actually, the reason I put quotes around it is because I happen to believe, as the majority of Americans, that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, and is a gift from our God. Anything else is a civil union and a secular legal contract. But just as the liberals like to do in this country, changing the nomenclature is a way to start winning the battle. I have no problem fundamentally with homosexuality as far as people’s free choice and what they choose to do (I’m a Libertarian after all) even if my own personal faith, as a Christian, may not agree with it. But I too do not believe ‘marriage’ in the correct term nor construct for what could be legitimate civil rights accommodation for homosexuals. Again, I’ll repeat: this isn’t about hate or homophobia or anything like that.

Well said Slider. I feel the same way and I'm not a homophobe and I certainly do not hate homosexuals. That in and of itself would be against Jesus' teachings. I think that homosexuals should be allowed the same rights as unmarried heterosexual couples.
NW747400

kiwiandrew · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:13 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 48):
the people of california said they wanted civil unions instead of marriage

not quite , they said they wanted civil unions instead of marriage for one section of the population only .

PSA727 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:14 pm

Being a third generation Californian, I can assure anyone that Californians are not backwards.
And there is no "Mormon Stronghold" on the State. There were some factors involved in
this win (defeat). First, this initiative was approved by the voters previously, and was then
overturned by the Supreme Court. So there was a percentage who did not appreciate the
actions of the court overturning the will of the people. Then there were those that feared
allowing gay marriage would require schools to "discuss" this lifestyle in their curriculem.
However, I think what put this over the top was the recent wedding of a lesbian school
teacher in San Francisco. The mayor peformed the ceremony, but more importantly, the
teacher brought her kindergarten class to the ceremony. The image of the kids throwing
rice at the couple as they walked down the steps of the city hall was played over and over
again on television. Not a strategically smart decision so close to the election for the couple
to have made (as well as the school who allowed the kids to attend).

Now if California wants to be bold, they can end the "marriage" ceremony at the civil level
and call them civil unions. Only couples who are wed in churches can be termed married.
And breakaway sects that allow gay mariage do not count. Everyone else is in a civil union.
I think the majority of Californians have no objection to gay civil unions.

EWRCabincrew · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:19 pm

If marriage is so important, ban divorce. Hell, make it so hard to get a divorce that you have to consider marriage in the first place.

A person's favorite sin is the one they are least likely to commit.

Quoting Slider (Reply 27):
and is a gift from our God.

If it is truly a gift, why do so many exchange for something seemingly better? The divorce rate is high, how much of a gift can it be for people to throw it away? Where is the public outrage from religious groups about that?

Cadet57 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:20 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 48):
Did I say that?

Yes you did. Becuase when I asked you the following:

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 30):
Why does the state get to say who one can marry?

You replied with:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 35):
Cause it is the state that has to pick up the pieces and get people alimony and kids child support.

So by your definition because straight couples get divorces and alimony, gay's cant marry because god forbid they do the same thing. Oh no the horror!

iflykpdx · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:25 pm

USA Today seems interested in publishing my letter, awesome!

sr117 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:35 pm

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 52):
I think what put this over the top was the recent wedding of a lesbian school
teacher in San Francisco. The mayor peformed the ceremony, but more importantly, the
teacher brought her kindergarten class to the ceremony.

And I wonder if most people are aware that this was the idea from the -parents- themselves, not some activist teacher, the story has been completely blown out of context, and those parents that did not wish their children to attend were free to do so (and some did), how the story was twisted is truly disgusting..

airxliban · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:36 pm

I sympathise with anyone who feels like a great injustice was done with the passing of proposition 8 in California. I vote in California, but I voted via an emergency ballot from overseas and wasn't able to vote for anything except for the President.

I've been of the belief that the correct progressive answer to this question is that these rights should not be withheld to people based on sexual orientation. However, could someone kindly help me get more precise on this issue...what rights does a "marriage" entail, legally?

1. Asset sharing
2. Tax benefits?
3. Adopt children
4. ???
5.
6.

I would be ever so grateful if someone could help me fill in the rest of this list. I would like to get a full view of what exact rights are being denied to gay people because proposition 8 passed.

StuckInCA · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:37 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 35):
Cause it is the state that has to pick up the pieces and get people alimony and kids child support

But straight people get married and divorced all the time. People can get married for all sorts of dubious reasons and when they aren't likely to succeed. What does sexual preference have to do with alimony and child support?

EWRCabincrew · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:41 pm

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 57):
1. Asset sharing
2. Tax benefits?
3. Adopt children
4. ???
5.
6.

The state not taking away assets in the event of death of one of the spouses.

The ability to assert your right over belongings (home/car/etc.) that could otherwise be taken by the family of your spouse in the event their death.

To be legally recognised as a family.

Among others.

PSA727 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:45 pm

Quoting SR117 (Reply 56):
And I wonder if most people are aware that this was the idea from the -parents- themselves, not some activist teacher, the story has been completely blown out of context, and those parents that did not wish their children to attend were free to do so (and some did), how the story was twisted is truly disgusting..

Regardless of whose decision it was, it was stupid in light of the upcoming election.
Image is everything, and they blew it big time. And yes, it was revealed that the kids'
parents had to sign a release form, as it is required by state law for any school field trip.

TWFirst · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:46 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 26):
It is you that is spinning it buddy, marriage between a man and woman is governed by state law, so it does come under vote. Just because civil unions are fine is some peoples' opinion doesn't mean any civil rights are being violated.

WRONG.

The issue is NOT whether the laws governing recognition of a legal covenant can "come under vote". The issue is we as a society and species have determined that "separate but equal" is NOT equal and NOT "respectable," and demanding that your support of discrimination be "respected" is not a rational position. Prohibiting the bestowment of legal benefits and status based solely on gender is unacceptable, archaic, and a violation of basic human rights, and just because a majority of people who voted on this in California supported legalized discrimination certainly does NOT justify it.

san747 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:50 pm

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 53):
If marriage is so important, ban divorce. Hell, make it so hard to get a divorce that you have to consider marriage in the first place.

Exactly. The idea of a marriage being sacred and the idea of "death do us part" is so far removed from what marriage is today that it is really essentially meaningless.

DocLightning · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:52 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):

Marriage is not a 'view'.

In fact, according to the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia it is a "fundamental right."

So now, the trick is to wait until the President can appoint some new justices and then take it to the high court.

Oh go on about "will of the people" blah blah blah.

NEVER in history has a minority group been granted rights by popular vote. NEVER. So get off that horse.

planespotting · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:54 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 35):
Oh Jeez, now since it suits you want religion? What happened to separation between church and state? Now who is being baseless and hypocritical? Again things can't be changed around to suit your personal opinions. That is why we have the state vote.

You're so far off base it's useless to even use logic with you.

What do you think "GETTING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS" means????

It certainly doesn't have anything to do with somehow uniting religious and government entities together!

If the church and state were truly separated, the government would not recognize marriage because that is traditionally something for the church. Basically, I said government should grant "civil unions" which are not based on religion ... therefore removing them from any religious ties and opening the current benefits of getting "married" to any interested party, provided both people are of age.

What about that made you think I'm pushing for some joint church-government togetherness?

TWFirst · Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:00 pm

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 64):
What about that made you think I'm pushing for some joint church-government togetherness?

He's grasping at straws Planespotting, because as you indicated, logic isn't something that can be used to justify discrimination.

garnetpalmetto · Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:06 pm

Quoting Cytz_pilot (Reply 47):
Also very bittersweet week for us, my wife is being a gestational surrogate for a gay couple and Monday we did the embryo transfer. We were all there and are all very happy and excited, and hoping the proposition would end up trashed so they could stay married. Now, I don't know what's going to happen.

From my read of it, couples who were married before the passing of Proposition 8 would still have to receive the recognition of being and the rights entitled to being a married couple, otherwise you open the ex post facto can of worms.

kiwiandrew · Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:08 pm

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 64):
If the church and state were truly separated, the government would not recognize marriage because that is traditionally something for the church.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 52):
Now if California wants to be bold, they can end the "marriage" ceremony at the civil level
and call them civil unions

this sounds like a far more sensible and non-discriminatory way of handling things - have marriage as a purely religious thing with no intrinsic legal value and have everyone regardless of orientation able to have a civil union through the state authorities . This should not only satisfy those who are of religious orientation but also satisfies the separation of church and state .... but unfortunately that is not what has happened today . The passing of proposition 8 has left a significant section of the population excluded from an institution that confers a number of distinctly secular rights ( taxes , next of kin status , property / inheritance etc ) purely because that institution also has , for some people , a religious dimension to it .

LAXintl · Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:11 pm

Quoting Cytz_pilot (Reply 47):
Unbelievable that 52% of a vote is enough to edit a state constitution and change the individual rights of a large minority.

Voters did not change anything.

They simply affirmed their previous wishes and standing law which a court in a split decision threw out.

This time the things will instead be codified on the state constitution free of state court or legislature tampering -- something nearly 30 other states have done also.

garnetpalmetto · Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:23 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 68):
This time the things will instead be codified on the state constitution free of state court or legislature tampering -- something nearly 30 other states have done also.

Just because other states have done it does not make it any less appalling. Were anti-miscegenation laws/amendments "right" because more than 1 or 2 states had them?

LAXintl · Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:43 pm

Quoting Garnetpalmetto (Reply 69):
Just because other states have done it does not make it any less appalling.

The point is that such amendments are widely held across the spectrum in America.

And frankly, I cant see why people view yesterdays vote as pivot point as it simply returns to the status quo(albeit on much firmer legal ground) what was in place in California prior to June 2008.

solarix · Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:12 pm

Reasons Prop 8 Passed

1. Prop 22

2. Sick of the minority overturning something that a MAJORITY voted for.

3. Gay marriage is supported by terrorist organizations such as Hollywood and ACLU and criminals including the San Francisco and Los Angeles mayors.

4. Bigoted commercials on TV that make false generalizations against entire religions.

5. Violence and vandalism against Yes on 8 Supporters.

6. Gays want marriage, but what about people that want to marry pigs, their sisters and have 50 wives? It would be discrimination if you didn't allow this to happen but allowed gays to do each other.

7. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

8. SoCal rules and would never support a San Francisco measure.

8 Wins!!!!!!!

RJdxer · Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:34 pm

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 28):
Don't make me laugh. When your partner is on their deathbed and you cannot carry out their last wishes because state law recognises their parents as a higher authority and renders you powerless, get back to me.

We've been here before. You can have power of attorney for virtualy all those concerns.

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 28):
By the way, just as a side note, after 3-4 years or so or civil partnerships, divorce rates among LGBT couples are around 20% lower than for straight couples who married in the same period. Something to think about when bleating on the scanctity of marriage.

As well as when dreaming up irrevelant ideas of why the definition of marriage should be changed.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 29):
No. What civil right was taken away from you last night?

What civil right has been taken from you? Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to marry whom you choose? If so we could go down that long road again of different types of marriage that should also be recognized if we are going to change the definition to suit one group.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 30):
Why does the state get to say who one can marry?

Why does the state get to say when you can drive? Drink? Own a firearm? Sign a legal contract? Have sex? Maybe it's because the state represents the peoples wishes.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32):
So long as the state is conferring rights to married people that others with identical living situations

But gays are not living in identical situations in that a typical marriage has one man and one woman.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32):
Not remotely comparable

Completely comparable. My political views are not going to get adequate representation and views that I am completely opposed to will be enacted against my wishes.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32):
You don't get tax benefits, 401K divestiture, hospital visitation and custodial rights after death of a loved one for voting in a national election.

If at least one member of Congress gets her way we will all lose our 401K's, that being said, as above there are legal remedies for virtually all those problems that already exist.

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 34):
Well the bigots may have won this battle

Why is it when a group of people say that they don't believe in something being worth recognition of the state that they are bigots when not one person here has called gays or gay behavior deviant (which i dont believe it is)?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 41):
For someone who claims to want less government involvement in people's lives, that's a curious statement. Did the government choose your spouse for you?

Yes, they said I could marry one woman and that's just what I did.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 53):
If marriage is so important, ban divorce. Hell, make it so hard to get a divorce that you have to consider marriage in the first place.

Agreed one hundred percent.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 63):
In fact, according to the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia it is a "fundamental right."

That marriage was also between a man and a woman. You can hide gay all day, try hiding black.

Cadet57 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:39 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 72):
Why does the state get to say when you can drive? Drink? Own a firearm? Sign a legal contract? Have sex? Maybe it's because the state represents the peoples wishes.

Apples and oranges. All of them. Half of those are for public safety reasons. 10 year old's might have a hard time reaching the pedals and 9 year olds probly dont handle liquor well, and the others are based on a reasonable assumption of maturity. (making a contract and sex). Dont hide behind the fact you DONT want gay's to get married with all this legal mumbo jumbo. By your example, who decided only straight people can marry? Again, the state with the church feeding it money. Sad really.

Maverick623 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:39 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
when pushed society is not ready too see the perversion of a very common accepted law and religious belief.

Too bad religious beliefs being the basis of government action is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution.

And calling gays a "perversion" is about as low as you can get, on the scale of calling black people n******. The only thing I'm gonna say without getting banned is SHAME ON YOU.

Remember too that slavery was once widely accepted by the majority of people... do you think that was right?

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 64):
If the church and state were truly separated, the government would not recognize marriage because that is traditionally something for the church. Basically, I said government should grant "civil unions" which are not based on religion ... therefore removing them from any religious ties and opening the current benefits of getting "married" to any interested party, provided both people are of age.

With the way marriage law is written today in most states, it is a de facto civil union.

Mir · Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:42 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 35):
Cause it is the state that has to pick up the pieces and get people alimony and kids child support.

So, in essence, the state is willing to do that for one group but not for another. That's discrimination.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 35):
Quoting Planespotting (Reply 31):
I would back a proposition to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Let "marriage" be something for the church

Oh Jeez, now since it suits you want religion? What happened to separation between church and state? Now who is being baseless and hypocritical?

You seem to be unable to see his point in your blind rage. I agree that getting government out of the marriage business altogether might not be such a bad idea. Have the government issue a civil union for gay or straight couples (which would provide the same legal rights to both), and then if those couples want to go to a church and get it called a marriage they can. That is the essence of separation of church and state.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 35):
No because to protect the rights of husband and spouses and kids state laws have to be in place.

Protect their rights from what?

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 51):
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 48):
the people of california said they wanted civil unions instead of marriage

not quite , they said they wanted civil unions instead of marriage for one section of the population only .

That is the crux of the issue.

Quoting Solarix (Reply 71):

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't being serious.

-Mir

NorthstarBoy · Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:42 pm

I really don't understand why the gay rights activists are obsessed with marrage. What's wrong with civil unions? what's wrong with lifetime partnerships? The concept of marriage has a very specific connotation that i agree with,it is between a man and a woman. and BTW I am all for allowing people to make lifetime commitments,just don't call those commitment ceremonies marriages, they're not. I'm glad this amendment passed, the Gay Rights Lobby needs to get off their obsession with gay marriage, it's never going to happen because their insistence to use the work marriage, they're just dying to mock organize religion by being able to say "I'm married!" they need to focus on making sure that committed couples have the same resources as straight married couples, but without the use of the term marriage. like i said, call it a commitment ceremony, call it, a civil union, call it anyone of a thousand things, but don't call a union between two men or two women a marriage, because it's not. the Gay Rights activists need to get that through their head and go work on more important issues.

LAXintl · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:01 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 74):
And calling gays a "perversion"

Where did I do that?

What I said was

Quote:
society is not ready too see the perversion of a very common accepted law and religious belief

Perversion Definition;
a diverting from the true intent or object; a change to something; a turning or applying to a wrong end or use. "Violations and perversions of the laws."

If we should accept a same sex marriages, then we should also suppose accept polygamy, arranged forced marriages, group marriages, henogamy, child marriage, human-animal and other historical or religious variations and make them legal also no?

sr117 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:20 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 77):
If we should accept a same sex marriages, then we should also suppose accept polygamy, arranged forced marriages, group marriages, henogamy, child marriage, human-animal and other historical or religious variations and make them legal also no?

Can the parties in a forced marriage, child marriage and a human-animal marriage make a conscious decision to enter into a legally binding contract such as marriage? Absolutely not, hence I do not know how they are even remotely comparable.

If three people want to get into the legal tangle of a polygamous marriage that confers equal rights to ALL parties(unlike some religious polygamous marriages where the alpha male calls the shots), then good luck !

Defining marriage as a contract entered between a man and woman in order to breed and raise children is an incredibly narrow definition. Are childless marriages any less valid and valuable than marriages with 10 children? How about marriages between senior citizens? between mentally challenged individuals? A marriage is about fully conscious and willing adults deciding to form a family, cohabit and build a future together, I don't know why it's so difficult to grasp for some.

Aaron747 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:21 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 48):
Just trying to clarify with facts why states have votes and laws on somethng that people here don't want to accept cause they want something other than using democracy.

You cannot substantively respond to the allegation of tyranny of the majority, nor the fact that conservatives are on record in opposition to stripping people of their rights in the state of California, so you continue repeating the same tired line. Morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 72):
If at least one member of Congress gets her way we will all lose our 401K's, that being said, as above there are legal remedies for virtually all those problems that already exist.

Except for...

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 72):
Yes, they said I could marry one woman and that's just what I did.

Funny that's what my aunt did last July. And now they're going to tell my aunt ex post facto her marriage is null and void when all she wants to do is have her 19 year union and status as a family be legitimate before the state. Denying her that is denying her a fundamental right - how can anyone stomach that? Do you know how many tears and years have been shed over that basic desire? Can you even remotely try to understand??

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32):
Do you still call it marriage when a man and a woman marry expressly for the purpose of expediting a visa for cash or satisfying conditions of a small business tax sheltering arrangement? People marry for those reasons too - I don't see the LDS donating money to have ballot initiatives brought against that.

Nobody responds to this. Very curious...

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32):
Ronald Reagan was the first to oppose this kind of nonsense in California and I'm pretty sure he wasn't personally crazy about the idea of gay teachers at the time, but he still opposed denying people of the right to choose their occupation on principle.

I will assume the lack of response means Reagan was wrong to have opposed the Briggs initiative in 1978...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_6_(1978)

LAXintl · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:37 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 79):
Denying her that is denying her a fundamental right - how can anyone stomach that?

Marriage a fundemantal right? Where does it say that? Common.

The closest you might get is the UN Declaration of Human Rights but it specificaly even states that its between a man and a woman.

Maverick623 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:37 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 77):
arranged forced marriages

Hahahahaha. Listen to yourself, man. No one is forcing people to be gay.

Aaron747 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:42 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 80):

Marriage a fundemantal right? Where does it say that? Common.

Uninformed response.

Loving v. Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...etcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Maverick623 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:43 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 80):
Marriage a fundemantal right? Where does it say that? Common.

If it's a government-sponsered privilege for one group, then it cannot be denied to a certain group of people just because your religion says it must be. That would violate the 1st Amendment.

LAXintl · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:06 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 82):
Uninformed response.

Not at all amigo...

That is talking about restricting marriage by race

It is NOT a fundamental right to be able to marry the same sex, partake in polygamy, or the other dozen variations which some groups do or wish to practice.

There indeed are hundreds of laws that infer right of marriage without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion but between a male and female.

All I can say is that in my opinion the more the GLBT community pushes society on the issue of marriage the deeper people will sink their heels in making it every more difficult for GLBT groups to achieve what they claim to desire. This is clearly evidenced by the rising number of state constitutional amendments in the US in the last decade.

One day if such lightening rod discussions continue I would not even be surprised to see a national constitutional ammanedment that would block same-sex marriages and suspect it would not be too difficult to achieve a 2/3 majority of States to do so.

GLBT need to step back - allow for more low key and calmer minds to prevail as frankly those leading the charge and frame the messages today are simply too divisive.

Maverick623 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:19 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 84):
One day if such lightening rod discussions continue I would not even be surprised to see a national constitutional ammanedment that would block same-sex marriages and suspect it would not be too difficult to achieve a 2/3 majority of States to do so.

And that would marked as the day the USA failed as a nation, as the Constitution would then contradict itself and probably be rendered invalid.

767Lover · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:21 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 82):
Loving v. Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

I'm for gay marriage, but I don't think using this case helps the issue any. The second half of that sentence "fundamental to our very existence and survival" couches marriage as a means to an end--- as in "we must marry so that we can procreate." Since same sex couples can't physically procreate vis-a-vis each other (with no donated anything), its relevance to Loving vs Virginia is questionable.

Of course, couples in the modern era don't have to marry to procreate, but mores were different back in the day.

Alias1024 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:23 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 72):
What civil right has been taken from you? Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to marry whom you choose? If so we could go down that long road again of different types of marriage that should also be recognized if we are going to change the definition to suit one group.

As has been pointed out by others, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that marriage is a fundamental right. The right that was taken from me as a citizen of California is the right to marry someone of the same gender if I should be so inclined. Fortunately for myself, this will not directly affect me as I'm attracted to the opposite gender, however it is still a right that I and every other citizen of California had yesterday, that I no longer have.

Aaron747 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:23 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 84):

There indeed are hundreds of laws that infer right of marriage without any limitation

Gender discrimination is a limitation. That was the whole reasoning behind the overturn of Prop 22. There is no logical reason to limit marriage for two consenting adults.

Polygamy and other variations are not viable in the discussion because they don't involve two consenting adults. It's always the same tired fallacies time and again.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 84):
This is clearly evidenced by the rising number of state constitutional amendments in the US in the last decade.

The only thing evidenced by that is that people are more and more comfortable with having government dictate how our personal lives look before the state. Libertarianism is dying ever so slowly on multiple fronts.

stasisLAX · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:30 pm

This is what will happen in California regarding Proposition Hate. It is going to be challenged in the state Supreme Court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. These "hot button" conservative issues will continue to appear on state ballots simply because these propositions led to greater conservative (aka Republican) voter turnouts.

It's really not simply about the issue itself - it's about getting social conversatives to turn out and vote for the social conservatives on the ballot. Sickening, but unfortunately true. cry

Aaron747 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:34 pm

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 86):
Since same sex couples can't physically procreate vis-a-vis each other (with no donated anything), its relevance to Loving vs Virginia is questionable.

Of course, couples in the modern era don't have to marry to procreate, but mores were different back in the day.

A good point but there's another side to that - they can and do adopt, and as for society's survival, surely having more people married is better than not.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 89):
It is going to be challenged in the state Supreme Court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

Already donated money to the legal effort as of 30 minutes ago.

LAXintl · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:36 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 85):
And that would marked as the day the USA failed as a nation, as the Constitution would then contradict itself and probably be rendered invalid.

Well each to its own -- I'm certain other groups would say that would be the day the nation was saved and its basic founding principles were upheld.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 88):
The only thing evidenced by that is that people are more and more comfortable with having government dictate how our personal lives look before the state. Libertarianism is dying ever so slowly on multiple fronts.

By government we mean people - so instead of just harping on California in this thread - are the folks of Arizona and Florida who yesterday also approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages along with the near 30 other states all wrong?

Seems to me that as liberal and open minded many people are to demand that government sanction same-sex marriage is a step too far and goes against the core values beliefs of the majority. Really no different then why we have a whole set of laws in this country whether they are drug, crime or civil laws - the majority of society must decide if something is right or wrong.

Aaron747 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:42 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 91):

Seems to me that as liberal and open minded many people are to demand that government sanction same-sex marriage is a step too far and goes against the core values beliefs of the majority.

No, eventually we'll get there - and with enough effort, sooner rather than later. The only consistent element in American progress is that tyranny of the majority has eventually been defeated every single time. That's the only reason women are flying airliners, owning businesses and property, and voting against gay marriage today.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 91):
the nation was saved

From...what...exactly??

photopilot · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:47 pm

Absolutely brilliant decision by the electorate. Thank heavens that common sense has finally prevailed and this abomination has been stopped.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. Period!!!!

Let the gays for Civil Unions with full legal rights but let them also find their own word to describe their unions.

IMHO

Charles79 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:47 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 83):
If it's a government-sponsered privilege for one group, then it cannot be denied to a certain group of people just because your religion says it must be. That would violate the 1st Amendment.

Very clear to understand but conveniently ignored by those who want to rule the lives of others.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 79):
Nobody responds to this. Very curious...

And no one will. The vote to ban gay marriage is a selfish one, pure and simple, and no different than when, at times in history, the majority decided that women and blacks couldn't vote, that black and white could not marry, etc. Fact is that the opponents of gay marriage really no longer have the moral stance. Heterosexual couples divorce on a daily basis, spousal cheating is on the rise, and, as you pointed out, thousands of marriages where the product of the need for a visa.

To be honest I don't care if they want to call it gay marriage, gay union, civil union, or whatever. It's just frustrating to be part of the "greatest" country in the world yet not be able to enjoy some of the most basic freedoms that other citizens enjoy. The worst part, of course, is when they tell you the reason for it is based on religion or moral values.

Aaron747 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:54 pm

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 94):
It's just frustrating to be part of the "greatest" country in the world yet not be able to enjoy some of the most basic freedoms that other citizens enjoy.

Frustrating, disheartening, and incredibly, unjustifiably, wrong.

ScarletHarlot · Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:19 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 92):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 91):
the nation was saved

From...what...exactly??

Good God man, don't you realize?!? If California had voted No on 8 it would have been mad, wild orgies of buggery and cunnilingus in the streets!! That's what all those filthy gays are waiting for!! And they'll line up the schoolchildren and make them watch too and teach them that it's natural!!!! People will turn away from heterosexuality and join in the gay orgies and nobody will have children any longer....AND THE HUMAN RACE WILL DIE OUT!! Or we'll be smited by our deity of choice! Oh, the humanity!! Thank the Lord this didn't happen!!!

Yeah sure

RJdxer · Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:22 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 79):
Funny that's what my aunt did last July.

But as my profile states, I am a man.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 79):
People marry for those reasons too

And as far as I know that is an illegal marriage.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 82):
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations

Sexual preference does not equate to race.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 86):
The second half of that sentence "fundamental to our very existence and survival" couches marriage as a means to an end--- as in "we must marry so that we can procreate."

Correct and it is the point that gays always over look in the ruling.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 82):
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Are you now claiming that Gay=Race?

Charles79 · Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:22 am

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 93):
Let the gays for Civil Unions with full legal rights but let them also find their own word to describe their unions.

If you read my post just below yours you would see that this is exactly what I would propose, and that's exactly how Germany did it. I understand that the word "marriage" means a lot to some folks and to be honest that's fine with a lot of us. Keep the word to describe the heterosexual relationship but don't deny us the privileges and benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

san747 · Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:23 am

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 89):

It's really not simply about the issue itself - it's about getting social conversatives to turn out and vote for the social conservatives on the ballot. Sickening, but unfortunately true. cry

Very true.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 94):

To be honest I don't care if they want to call it gay marriage, gay union, civil union, or whatever. It's just frustrating to be part of the "greatest" country in the world yet not be able to enjoy some of the most basic freedoms that other citizens enjoy. The worst part, of course, is when they tell you the reason for it is based on religion or moral values.

The most disturbing implication of Prop 8 passing, to me, is the dangerous and disturbing new precedent being set, where a group awarded with a right or freedom has it voted away... I don't want to live in an America where if enough people decide that certain citizens should be denied rights/freedoms that others have, they can be taken away, and that is EXACTLY what just happened yesterday.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net