Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 89): It is going to be challenged in the state Supreme Court,

From SFgate.com:
As the vote counting continued this morning, opponents of Prop. 8 filed a lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court - whose May 15 ruling legalized same-sex marriage - asking the justices to overturn the measure.

The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways - taking important rights away from a minority group - that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

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

You can't pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't.

And what right would gay marriage take away from husband, wife, and children anyways?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 97): Sexual preference does not equate to race.

All legal challenges to this and other obvious attempts at discrimination have already had precedent set by the CASC's decision on overturning Prop 22 - that argument was about gender, not sexual preference discrimination.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 97): Are you now claiming that Gay=Race?

No, merely same gender. Case in point: (see how easy that was?)

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 97): But as my profile states, I am a man.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 97): And as far as I know that is an illegal marriage.

Give me a break - nobody is complaining, much less putting a stop to that kind of marriage. I know three married pairings (they can't be called 'couples') who are strictly in undisclosed business arrangements. And in all states of the union, marriage as a means of visa assistance is commonplace.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 97): Correct and it is the point that gays always over look in the ruling.

Again, wrong, because many gays intend, have, and wish to adopt and raise children. If this is really about society's survival, then all marriages between couples who have no intention of procreating should be voided ex post facto just like California's gay marriages now have been.  

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 76): I really don't understand why the gay rights activists are obsessed with marrage. What's wrong with civil unions?

Let's turn that question around: why are anti-gay marriage activists so held up over the term "marriage"? If you're for the rights, why should the name be a stumbling block?

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 76): they're just dying to mock organize religion by being able to say "I'm married!"

No, they just want to be able to get married. I know gay people who are quite religious and have no desire to mock religion.

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

As previously stated, Loving vs. VA

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 84): That is talking about restricting marriage by race

When you start off with "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'" that's a strong blanket statement, without qualifications.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 91): 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?

I believe that they decided incorrectly, yes.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 91): 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.

Quite different. Laws are there to ensure that people don't their rights infringed upon. I would really like to hear how gay couples having the same rights as married couples infringes upon the rights of others.

-Mir

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 65): He's grasping at straws Planespotting, because as you indicated, logic isn't something that can be used to justify discrimination.

I'm grasping at straws? Your the one that is condemning something because you didn't get your way. Grow up and respect the vote, whether you agree with it or not. That is what this country is built on. Letting democracy decide. Not what one selfish person deems as the right thing.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 51): not quite , they said they wanted civil unions instead of marriage for one section of the population only .

Well that is what is the proposition was for wasn't it?

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 54): 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!

No not at all, and I don't think the people that oppose gay marriage care about that.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 72): As well as when dreaming up irrevelant ideas of why the definition of marriage should be changed.

It is a means to an end, they want something and can't accept that there is actually an alternative view and that it means anything.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 72): What civil right has been taken from you?

None whatsoever.

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.

Or lets the state decide maybe? With anything else you have to accept the majority vote, I was not thrilled with the fact Obama won but I accept the fact he won and respect the vote.

Quoting Mir (Reply 75): So, in essence, the state is willing to do that for one group but not for another. That's discrimination

How do you figure? If the prop passed it would have been totally different, why you blaming the state? Why does it make you so mad that some people out there think differently than you do?

Quoting Mir (Reply 75): You seem to be unable to see his point in your blind rage

Rage? lolol, go back and read the thread, the rage in on your side buddy. Not here.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 79): tyranny of the majority,

Oh I get it, so when the vote goes your way the majority is great but when it isn't they are the tryanny? This sir is what is intellectually bankrupt.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 81): Hahahahaha. Listen to yourself, man. No one is forcing people to be gay

  

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 93): 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.

Good view but your not allowed to have it. Remember your a tryant now if you disagree.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 101): And what right would gay marriage take away from husband, wife, and children anyways?

Good luck getting an answer.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 100): The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways - taking important rights away from a minority group - that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

And it will succeed, yet again, on the basis of gender discrimination.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 104): Your the one that is condemning something because you didn't get your way. Grow up and respect the vote, whether you agree with it or not. That is what this country is built on. Letting democracy decide.

This country is built on equality, fairness, and rule of law. If you want to establish second-class citizenship and exclusion, get the hell out and find a government more to your authoritarian liking.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 104): None whatsoever.

Wrong. My right to marry another man was removed ex post facto, whether I desire to actually do it or not.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 104): Oh I get it, so when the vote goes your way the majority is great but when it isn't they are the tryanny? This sir is what is intellectually bankrupt.

Same lame line, yet again. It has nothing to do with the vote going how I want - this shouldn't have been put to a vote period. There is no such thing as voting to remove rights from people. As previously stated, that's the only reason women are commanding airliners and voting today. AGAIN - do you disagree with Reagan's decision in 1978?

Simple question: If 60% of Californians decided people who cut their hair too short should be excluded from owning property, the decision should stand because the people wished it?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 104): Quoting Mir (Reply 75): So, in essence, the state is willing to do that for one group but not for another. That's discrimination How do you figure?

Because when the state refuses to grant rights to one group that it does grant to another, that's the very definition of discrimination. Simple as that.

-Mir

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 102): No, merely same gender

Again, the ruling from the supreme court clearly stated race. Again are you saying Gender=Race? Again, you hide gay all day long, try hiding black.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 102): If this is really about society's survival, then all marriages between couples who have no intention of procreating should be voided ex post facto just like California's gay marriages now have been.

As a good friend who is a lesbian once told me, just because you don't use the playpen doesn't mean the toys aren't still there. In a gay marriage all the toys and even the playpen may not be there.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 107): try hiding black.

  

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 108): Quoting RJdxer (Reply 107): try hiding black.

That guy is just disturbing. I wonder what doctor actually told him on his last trip to the table that he could improve his situation? Whomever it was certainly violated the "do no harm" code.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 109): That guy is just disturbing. I wonder what doctor actually told him on his last trip to the table that he could improve his situation? Whomever it was certainly violated the "do no harm" code.

He still isnt black  

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 104): Your the one that is condemning something because you didn't get your way.

Um, you're the one condemning something that


- is a free choice by folks who are of legal age to make it
- doesn't affect you or anyone else in the slightest
- makes a lot of people happy
- is basically no different from heterosexual marriage


You lose again, like always.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 104): Grow up and respect the vote, whether you agree with it or not. That is what this country is built on.

True, although I think everyone would like to know what exactly propositions like this protects marriage from? Heterosexuals have singlehandedly destroyed marriage on their very own, so as a rational human being I find it hard to understand why lashing out at others not even allowed to marry protects the institution of marriage.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 107): Again, the ruling from the supreme court clearly stated race. Again are you saying Gender=Race? Again, you hide gay all day long, try hiding black.

Gay is only the issue for the faith-based groups that continue to bring these propositions. The GOP-stacked California supreme court ruled that this issue is actually about gender discrimination when the question is marriage restricted to only opposite sexes. Why are you so bent on drawing lines between gender, race, gay, whatever anyway? Discrimination is still discrimination at the end of the day. You can't give rights to some and not to others for no logical reason.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 110): He still isnt black

Nope, no matter how he tries to change himself you can still tell he is black, well now sort of a musty charcoal.   

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 113): Why are you so bent on drawing lines between gender, race, gay, whatever anyway?

Why are you so bent on trying to equate them? Perhaps because it's the only way to gain a foothold?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 113): You can't give rights to some and not to others for no logical reason.

That assumes you have the right to begin with and nowhere in the Constitution or the bill of rights does it say that marriage is a right.

Hey I have an idea.

Why don't groups that advocate same-sex marriages, draw up their own initiatives permitting such and put it to the voters in every state, instead of repeatedly trying to go behind the backs of voters and various legislatures in challenging what has already been approved??

Seemingly to me a growing frustration in voters exist seeing the same thing that has already been approved coming back for a revotes. I sure had lots of people around me say "hey did we not vote on this a few years ago already?"

Btw - I believe its going to be difficult to challenge this CA Amendment as it was carefully crafted and in a different league legally then the previous Prop-22 which was a constitutional revision and not a standalone amendment of the state constitution as Prop-8 is. Such amendment challenges in other states have not met much success.

Too tired and frustrated to read the whole thread, so sorry.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 26): No but the law governing it is. It went to a vote and just because it didn't go your way you don't respect the vote. Now that is what sounds like Russia pal.

Nah. It's not like people are out there disobeying the law. But we don't have to like the result.

Not to mention, if you believe that the vote result is depriving people of civil rights, then why should you respect it?

Quoting F9Widebody (Reply 43): Can someone explain to me when marriage became a "right"? I don't see it anywhere in the constitution....maybe I'm missing something. I can understand how people might feel entitled to the rights and privileges afforded to those who are married, and I believe that all people, regardless of sexual preference, are entitled to those rights, but when did marriage, rather than civil unions or domestic partnerships, become a right?

I suppose one could argue that it became a right as soon as the government started recognizing them.

Quoting Cytz_pilot (Reply 47): My wife has long suggested that government recognize civil unions only - not marriage - and that churches can decide for themselves what they recognize marriage to be. Maybe that's the answer, I don't know.

That is the answer. No question. The government should remove itself from the marriage business, and only deal in civil unions.

I do wonder, every now and then....Do people realize that we're arguing over a word? We're arguing over an M, two A's, two R's, an I, a G, and an E, written down in a certain order.

No matter which way you feel about it, it's pretty fucking ridiculous.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 114): trying to equate them

Because discrimination in any form is, plainly, not an American value.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 114): That assumes you have the right to begin with and nowhere in the Constitution or the bill of rights does it say that marriage is a right.

The US Supreme Court already said that it is.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 115): Why don't groups that advocate same-sex marriages, draw up their own initiatives permitting such and put it to the voters in every state, instead of repeatedly trying to go behind the backs of voters and various legislatures in challenging what has already been approved??

That worked wonders in the fight against segregation didn't it??  

Andrew Sullivan has been posting eloquently on this today, as expected:

I think the experience of actual gay married couples in California will make the difference. This takes time. There are bigots on the other side, for sure. But also cautious people. We need to reassure them. That's what the reality of inter-racial married couples did for miscegenation laws. That's what our lives and experiences will do for the final barrier. Take heart and know hope...

...some perspective from someone who has fought this fight as long and as personally as anyone in this country. Twenty years ago, equality of gay couples was a mere idea. Forty years ago, it was a pipe-dream.

The hope for equality can never be extinguished, however hard our opponents try. And in the unlikely history of America, there has never been anything false about hope.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 113): logical reason.

Logical reason is what is lacking from the arguments of RJdxer, Slider, NIKV69, and some other A.netters. You might as well be talking to a brick wall because the outcome will be the same. For all their claims otherwise, they are filled with homophobia and hate (the alleged good friend lesbian aside, but then, she's a woman, so it's not the same). There is no other logical argument for their vehemence on this issue. They can turn blue in the face claiming they're not prejudiced or hateful, but they reveal themselves to be exactly so repeatedly.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 109): That guy is just disturbing. I wonder what doctor actually told him on his last trip to the table that he could improve his situation? Whomever it was certainly violated the "do no harm" code.

Hey, he made history. Do you know of any other poor black kids who grew up to be a rich white woman? It's a shame he went down this path, though, as a singer he was rather good.

Back on topic...

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 114): That assumes you have the right to begin with and nowhere in the Constitution or the bill of rights does it say that marriage is a right.

RJ, whether it's a right or not, marriage is a social condition that is currently being acknowledged and blessed by the government. The fact that the same condition is being denied to members of society makes it discrimination. Did the Constitution say that people had the right to sit in a bus? We still realized that it was discrimination, didn't we?

At the end of the day a gay relationship is no different than a straight one. We have fights, we pay taxes, we go to work, deal with in-laws, etc. Why the hold up? Me being gay or straight does not affect your existence one iota, so why care? Again, what bothers me the most is the frustration, and when I hear folks say that we are bringing freedom and democracy to other countries yet we choose not to fix our own.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 107): As a good friend who is a lesbian once told me, just because you don't use the playpen doesn't mean the toys aren't still there. In a gay marriage all the toys and even the playpen may not be there.

Your argument might have been valid had procreation been a requirement for issuing a marriage license. The way our society sees marriage is as an institution in which two persons publicly declare their love for one another, regardless of their intentions to have kids.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 117): Because discrimination in any form is, plainly, not an American value.

We will have to agree to disagree since I don't see it as discrimination,

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 117): The US Supreme Court already said that it is.

When race is involved, not gender.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 118): For all their claims otherwise, they are filled with homophobia and hate

Sure. When in doubt just call them a hate monger. I have a feeling that several of the gay members of the forum would disagree with you.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 120): several of the gay members

Several might disagree , but I have a feeling that many more of the gay members would agree with me. We've had lifetimes of listening to guys like you, and we can see through your rhetoric extremely well.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 119): The fact that the same condition is being denied to members of society makes it discrimination.

Per the California State Constiution, that would be the legal basis.
Since marriage is a state issue, governed by the laws of each state, I'm having a hard time figuring out what the federal issue would be, unless someone can tie this to interstate commerce like Gore v Bush.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 121): Several might disagree , but I have a feeling that many more of the gay members would agree with me. We've had lifetimes of listening to guys like you, and we can see through your rhetoric extremely well.

Can't speak for the others you mentioned but RJ certainly is NOT homophobic. Please don't go down that road and start calling people names they are not. You end up looking foolish, and the weight of your argument suffers.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 117): That worked wonders in the fight against segregation didn't it??

I'm sorry but I do not see a parallel with segregation and the black civil rights campaigns.

Trying to ride such coat tails ignores centuries of basic law, church belief and society values globally which define marriage between a man and a woman and not a man and a goat, or anything else.

What one wants to do in their own home is one thing, but to ask and society and government to sanction and codify such acts is totaly different.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 92): The only consistent element in American progress is that tyranny of the majority has eventually been defeated

Again I dont see how you can define it as being tyranny when it comes to our laws.

Is it tyranny that some one cant smoke a crack pipe? drive 90mph in a 30 zone? or walk out of a store without paying?
At some point the majority needs to set down what the laws are and what is acceptable in society. -- Yes this is bad for the crack pipe smokers, speeders and thieves but how else do you suggest we run society?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 124): Is it tyranny that some one cant smoke a crack pipe? drive 90mph in a 30 zone? or walk out of a store without paying? At some point the majority needs to set down what the laws are and what is acceptable in society. -- Yes this is bad for the crack pipe smokers, speeders and thieves but how else do you suggest we run society?

You can't drive 90mph in a 30mph zone because it creates a hazard to the safety of others. You can't walk out of a store without paying because that would be depriving others of their property. In order to create the parallel you seek to create, you need to show that gay marriage deprives others of their rights or creates a physical hazard to them. So, how?

I grow tired of asking this question, so I hope it's the last time.

-Mir

I am so disappointed in my home state at this moment in time. People chose fear over fairness and equality. We still have a long way to go.

Thanks to the Mormons and Catholics and all the other religious bigots in this state for trying to legislate the Bible. Taking away rights from a minority because of "God's Will".

Disgusting.

I am afraid that all the moaning and complaining means nothing. You just watched Democracy in action. It is not perfect, but it is all we have. All of you outraged folks had better get to work and get a new vote. Be careful, you may not like the results. There is a little addage here, Majority rules.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 127): There is a little addage here, Majority rules.

The Majority should never be allowed to take away rights from a Minority.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 119): Me being gay or straight does not affect your existence one iota, so why care?

Yes it does and LAX sums it up for me.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 124): Trying to ride such coat tails ignores centuries of basic law, church belief and society values globally which define marriage between a man and a woman and not a man and a goat, or anything else. What one wants to do in their own home is one thing, but to ask and society and government to sanction and codify such acts is totaly different.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 119): The way our society sees marriage is as an institution in which two persons publicly declare their love for one another, regardless of their intentions to have kids.

The post was in response to the forum member who was using the Loving case as an example and the case clearly relates to race.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 121): We've had lifetimes of listening to guys like you, and we can see through your rhetoric extremely well.

Sure, I always go around calling people I have disagreements with and have never met in real life hate monger and homophobic.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 118): For all their claims otherwise, they are filled with homophobia and hate (the alleged good friend lesbian aside, but then, she's a woman, so it's not the same). There is no other logical argument for their vehemence on this issue. They can turn blue in the face claiming they're not prejudiced or hateful, but they reveal themselves to be exactly so repeatedly.

Hey, let's not start that crap. It's not right to call someone bigoted or say that they are filled with hate just because they take a position you don't agree with. You are making the same assumptions people make about you, and it's not right either way.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 123): Please don't go down that road and start calling people names they are not. You end up looking foolish, and the weight of your argument suffers.

  

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 124): Trying to ride such coat tails ignores centuries of basic law, church belief and society values globally which define marriage between a man and a woman and not a man and a goat, or anything else.

For centuries, slavery was considered an acceptable societal value. It was an accepted social value that some people were inherently inferior and therefore did not deserve equal rights and could be enslaved. Church belief also supported it as well.

I'm not saying slavery and gay marriage are equal in their importance. However, I challenge that just because something is socially accepted doesn't mean it is right.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 86): he 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.

But modern science has made surrogate embryo-bearers possible. I would think the law would take modern developments into account. Gay people can "procreate", indirectly.

As a general rule, and like a few posters have mentioned, I do not see why gay people in de facto relationships should be discriminated against from a fiscal point of view. I do not understand how someone's sexual preferences should be a tax burden.

Just my AU$0.02.

 

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 119): The way our society sees marriage is as an institution in which two persons publicly declare their love for one another, regardless of their intentions to have kids.

That's what's at the heart of the matter, any way you try to "pervert" the issue.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 119): At the end of the day a gay relationship is no different than a straight one. We have fights, we pay taxes, we go to work, deal with in-laws, etc. Why the hold up? Me being gay or straight does not affect your existence one iota, so why care?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 124): marriage between a man and a woman and not a man and a goat, or anything else.

Nice cheap shot. Someone always brings animals into it...

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 124): What one wants to do in their own home is one thing, but to ask and society and government to sanction and codify such acts is totaly different.

There, bias exposed. "Such acts". Because you believe homosexuality is wrong, it's thus wrong for my aunt and millions of others to have their marriage legally recognized. That's textbook tyranny of the majority.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 124): Is it tyranny that some one cant smoke a crack pipe? drive 90mph in a 30 zone? or walk out of a store without paying? At some point the majority needs to set down what the laws are and what is acceptable in society. -- Yes this is bad for the crack pipe smokers, speeders and thieves but how else do you suggest we run society?

Public safety and marriage cannot be compared. Fallacious argument, per the usual on this issue. Next.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 104): I'm grasping at straws? Your the one that is condemning something because you didn't get your way. Grow up and respect the vote, whether you agree with it or not.

Oh yes, that is just what you are doing on the Obama threads   

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 104): Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 79): tyranny of the majority, Oh I get it, so when the vote goes your way the majority is great but when it isn't they are the tryanny? This sir is what is intellectually bankrupt.

No, Tyranny of the Majority is a concept that is probably over your head, but it has to to do with the fact that minority rights are not usually protected by the majority. The founding fathers were aware of this problem, and actually the government of our country is set up to address this.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 104): That is what this country is built on. Letting democracy decide. Not what one selfish person deems as the right thing.

For example, you will note that our country has made several great strides (at least I hope even you will agree they are great strides) toward equality, such as the abolition of slavery, desegregation, women's suffrage, equal pay for women, etc. However, in none of these cases has the change come about simply by popular vote. Usually, issues of rights denied have been rectfied by the judicial branch first--or occasionally by executive or legislative acts--and only later accepted by the majority.

So stop. Take a deep breath, and try, just try to think analytically, consistently, logically, and with some nuance.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 130): It's not right to call someone bigoted or say that they are filled with hate just because they take a position you don't agree with.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 123): Can't speak for the others you mentioned but RJ certainly is NOT homophobic.

I've had years of reading RJ's posts, both under his current and past user name, and I stand by my conclusion. If you don't like it, that's fine, but I will call it as I see it. Homophobia and prejudice take many different forms, and the posts/posters to whom I referred earlier (not just RJ's) displayed both.

Sad that prop 8 passed.
I voted no.

My thinking is that many people were confused on the wording of it.
There were some people that thought a 'yes' vote would legalize same-sex marriage.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 129): Quoting Charles79 (Reply 119): Me being gay or straight does not affect your existence one iota, so why care? Yes it does and LAX sums it up for me.

You're a crazy, paranoid person who must lead a terrible, miserable existence if you actually believe two people making a personal choice that leaves you no worse off, no less safe, no less wealthy, no less free and no less heterosexual actually affects you.

Unless you can give us some kind of concrete, reasonable example of how this affects you, you really have no leg to argue on.

Your reasonable example also cannot include anything about laws that actually affect the safety of others (like speeding or smoking crack), humans marrying animals, or the fact that you just don't agree with gay marriage. Speeding and crack laws are certainly necessary, humans don't marry animals for a reason, and it's OK not to agree or like gay marriage, but none of them are worthy arguments for denying someone the right to make a choice that doesn't effect anyone else but them.

Quoting N229NW (Reply 134): No, Tyranny of the Majority is a concept that is probably over your head,

To be fair, I think omelets are a concept over NIKV69s head ...

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 137): You're a crazy, paranoid person who must lead a terrible, miserable existence if you actually believe two people making a personal choice that leaves you no worse off, no less safe, no less wealthy, no less free and no less heterosexual actually affects you. Unless you can give us some kind of concrete, reasonable example of how this affects you, you really have no leg to argue on. Your reasonable example also cannot include anything about laws that actually affect the safety of others (like speeding or smoking crack), humans marrying animals, or the fact that you just don't agree with gay marriage. Speeding and crack laws are certainly necessary, humans don't marry animals for a reason, and it's OK not to agree or like gay marriage, but none of them are worthy arguments for denying someone the right to make a choice that doesn't effect anyone else but them.

Pretty much.

I can't read this whole thread but lets put a little perspective on this. The passage of Prop 8 has not eliminated any benefits for gays. They enjoy all the rights of married peopleunder California civil union law. They were never recognized under federal law and as such, had no benefits to lose.

As far as "equality", get over it, society is not equal. The most discriminated class today are single people, for example, explain why they are subsidizing benefits for Jims wife and Joes husband.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 136): My thinking is that many people were confused on the wording of it. There were some people that thought a 'yes' vote would legalize same-sex marriage

I wondered about that as well. There was only one minor thing on the ballot in NY, and I had to read it over two or three times to figure out what it meant. So I imagine there are quite a few people in California who accidentally voted the wrong way.

It amazes me to read this thread, because it seems like pretty much everyone is pro-marriage equality...and yet in every electiion cycle more and more states amend their constitutions.

But don't despair. Despite the major setback yesterday, things are looking good on the horizon:

http://washblade.com/2008/9-19/news/localnews/index.cfm

DC might very well become the first entity (not a State) to pass a gay-marriage bill through the legislature. Congress will then be forced to effectively rule on whether or not to allow gay marriage, and it's very unlikely that a Democratic Congress would overturn the democratic process in DC. Furthermore, New York, which already recognizes out-of-state gay marriages, is now controlled by a Democratic Senate (after the election yesterday), and led by our wonderful governor David Paterson, who is in my opinion the best spokesman for gay issues in the entire country. So, in short, New York and DC may have gay marriage within the next year or two. And not gay marriage ruled on by some divided high court, but rather through the legislature. Do not despair.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 132): Gay people can "procreate", indirectly.

Which one of the males in the relationship provides the egg? Which one of the females provides the sperm?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 141): Which one of the males in the relationship provides the egg? Which one of the females provides the sperm?

Ok. What about hetero couples who cannot have children? Should they be barred from marriage as well? Again, what about surrogates?

One of the males provides the sperm.

I think your argument does not hold ground.

 

I think this battle has been mismanaged badly from the no on 8 side. They were never going to get over the 50% by calling everyone that opposed them a bigot. The discrimination argument and comparisons to slavery and 'separate but equal' were only going to work on a certain part of the population, while insulting another part. While there were certainly some homophobes among the yes voters, the vast majority are decent people who never fully saw the other side of the argument or were scared by the flagrant lies in the yes on 8 television ads.

Where they failed was to connect emotionally with the yes voters, to get the yes voters to 'walk a mile in their shoes'. The better argument was to ask the yes voters "why did you marry your spouse"? It wasn't for inheritance rights or hospital visitation rights, it was because you wanted to stand up in front of your family, your friends, and your God and proclaim that they would love your partner with all of your heart for the rest of your lives. Then attempt to make those in favor of prop 8 see that gays simply want that same day. While the legal rights are surely nice, it's the emotional aspect of committing to someone else in front of God and all those witnesses that means so much to so many homosexuals, and having their commitment have equal standing as anyone else's commitment to their spouse.

Contrary to the opinions of many supporters of prop 8, many gays are quite religious. They simply believe that God made them the way they are and to love the person that they love, and therefore would not be opposed to their marriage. Marriage is a religious rite for gays, just as it is for straight people. This is the argument that got lost in the advertisements about Armenians not being able to buy a home in Fresno and interracial couples not being able to marry.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 141): Which one of the males in the relationship provides the egg? Which one of the females provides the sperm?

So then marriage should not be allowed for anyone that is deemed to infertile. What about men who have lost their testicles or women who have lost their ovaries due to cancer? They should not be allowed to marry because they are unable to procreate with their marriage partner? How about the elderly? Defining marriage solely on the ability to procreate seems quite arbitrary.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 133): There, bias exposed. "Such acts".

Without knowing me, I suggest you dont accuse me bias.

What would you say if you knew many of my friends would consider me one of the most color blind and gender blind people they know?

However just because I might accept peoples choices as to sexual partners, does not mean I have to accept government validating such choices.

Again it seems its the tail wagging the dog. Whats next? Vegans forcing a ban on the sale on of steaks at restaurants?, fair skin folks that burn easily get roofs built on our outdoor pools?, Orthodox Jews getting a ban on cars in our cities for the weekly Sabbath?

Common folks.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 136): There were some people that thought a 'yes' vote would legalize same-sex marriage.

You know what - the language used on the proposition was not the one that the proponents even wanted but something the state election board came up with.
The proponents were actualy considering a lawsuit to get something more explicit or black and white on the ballot such as Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. however decided to let it go not to delay the vote potentialy.

If anything I believe the language used on the proposition helped the No crowd more.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 141): Which one of the males in the relationship provides the egg? Which one of the females provides the sperm?

Which one of a couple that adopts a child produced the egg? Which produced the sperm?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 136): My thinking is that many people were confused on the wording of it. There were some people that thought a 'yes' vote would legalize same-sex marriage.

Well then they're stupid or don't have a television, because about $70 million was spent
on this measure by both sides (coming in second only to the Presidential race). I believe
the "yes" was used to affirm what was passed in the previous election and later overturned
by the State Supreme Court.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 126): Thanks to the Mormons and Catholics and all the other religious bigots in this state for trying to legislate the Bible. Taking away rights from a minority because of "God's Will".

Well California is also my home state, I'm Catholic, and I'm gay and I would have voted Yes.
I believe that marriage is a religious matter (you know, holy matrimony) and I don't think that
any religious institution allows for gay marriage. I also believe that the government should
be issuing civil unions, not marriages, regardless of sexual orientation, because the state
is secular. Now if they want to have a ballot measure to allow gay civil unions, then I would
vote for it, as i think the majority Californians would also.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 146): I don't think that any religious institution allows for gay marriage.

So then how do you explain the gay couples that have been married in churches? Not all Christian churches frown on gay marriage, and certainly many Universalist churches would sanction it.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 146): Well then they're stupid or don't have a television, because about $70 million was spent on this measure by both sides (coming in second only to the Presidential race). I believe the "yes" was used to affirm what was passed in the previous election and later overturned by the State Supreme Court.

Hey, relax there buddy. I've seen so many damn commercials for both sides of Prop 8, that they just get all muddled in my mind. I'm not stupid, and I have a TV, but when I got to the polling place, I made damn sure that I read over the proposition twice to ensure I marked the correct box.

It can happen. If someone told me there was a proposition about allowing gay marriage, I would have automatically thought that "Yes" meant that it was allowed, and "No" banned it. Obviously, I would have been wrong.

Now, if people did mark the wrong box, that's their own fault, obviously. I'm just saying it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 147): So then how do you explain the gay couples that have been married in churches? Not all Christian churches frown on gay marriage, and certainly many Universalist churches would sanction it.

Individual churches can breakaway from their religious heirarchy, and some cults like to call
themselves churches (Branch Davidians). Call them civil unions and you won't have that great
of opposition, plus the legal benefits that is really what at issue here, right?