Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
lolcalifornia, that is all.
 
California is not the only state to pass this mess... I had the pleasure of voting on it myself and sadly it passed in Arizona as well. There is a third state that voted on this and that is Florida and their vote is too close to call atm because it takes a 60% majority to pass an initiative there.

The ban which was largely sponsored by the Mormon Church who outspent the opposition in advertising 10-1 and was largely touted as a long term victory because it is already illegal to have same sex marriages in Arizona but now it is a part of the constitution which is much harder to change. It passed in Arizona with 56% of the vote.

California = Prop 8
Arizona = Prop 102
Flordia = Prop 2
 
I personally voted no on 8, but the only thing that almost changed my mind was Gavin Newsome, Mayor of San Fransisco, telling me "whether you like it or not." I dont care what you sexual orientantion, race, religion or anything I dont want anyone in my gov't telling me whether I like it or not I'm gonna do anything.
Also, even tho its a small part of the education system, No on 8 ppl said it would have nothing to do with education, when it would.
But, yes, its is very stupid people in this state would vote that down.
 
Fail.

That is all.
 
Lame. I honestly don't see why it bothers people to see gay marriages. Mind your own fucking business and move on.
 
I usually try and a bit less outspoken but as a woman, i've always wondered why people care so much about sexual orientation.

I wont stir too far from the topic but I think this is silly and just down right wrong.
Who you love, who you fuck, who you chose to spend your life with or share legal responsibilities with should be a matter of the people involved, unless its crossing territory into the violating laws and what not.

Not allowing homosexuals/lesbians/gays to marry is just insulting. I myself, dont understand it. First of all, whos business is it that the people involved are said gender. We aren't talking about goats and cows here. We are talking about living, sane(I would hope so anyway..) educated citizens of a free country.

Now to say something ive always wanted to ask out loud.. Why on earth do people even care about what sexuality someone is? I do agree it is a concern in schools, we want our children to remain innocent and we dont want to encourage them to be sexual in anyway or give them the impression sex is OK/NOT OK. Its just one of those "Dont ask, dont tell" type subjects. I do think it should remain that way but states should take measures to ensure kids/teens learn about the steps to having safe sex, but thats another subject. As for being gay or heterosexual, I don't think its really anyones business, so it shouldn't even be a subject in schools. Who gives a shit? Equality should be encouraged in every way shape or form w/o pinpointing it on sexuality.

As for marriage and legal rights, in the U.S.A at the age of 18, you are considered an adult and will be expected to carry the responsibilities as one. As comes with the reward to make your own choices, as long as its within the current laws (age etc) there should be no reason anyone should have to answer to anyone about who they wish to share legal responsibilities with/get married too/fuck/w.e floats the person boat.

Ame
 
Last edited:
Fear-mongering by religious groups good game.
 
Mirewen said:
That is the reason a lot of people give to not get married. “We live together, isn’t that enough?” or “What can be gained by getting married that can’t be gained by common law?” Marriage means different things to different people. If gay/lesbian couples want to get married, why does anyone else care? How does it effect anyone else?
Click to expand...

Marriage brings with it dependendents in the US:
A recognized dependent =

1. A tax break. Filing as Head of Household + dependant will give you more tax breaks than 2 solo anyday. Assume for a second that 10% of the population of CA were to do this...that's a TON of state revenue to be lost out on.

2. Benefits. Homosexual couples would both be able to file for a group with one or the others company's health / life insurance plans. This is means either the companies themselves have to raise their rates to take out of everyone's check to make up for the lost revenue, or the health / life insurance companies end up losing profits.

Its all about business. If you want this to get passed, you need to take a look at it anolytically rather than a persecution.

Should homosexuals be granted the same rights? Probably. But if you're looking at profit/loss statements and planning out business strategies with the economy how it is, as a business this is an expense you'd put pressure on the government to appose. This is a prime example of lobbyists in my opinion.
 
Arctyrael said:
The only hope in nullifying the amendment in CA would take the case all the way to the supreme court. Only document that can override this is the constitution. Thankfully attempts to amend that will fail.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even have to go that far. California's Supreme Court has the power to invalidate it. Lamba Legal has issued the challenge, and I have little doubt it'll be overturned as unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group - lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw - it removes a protected constitutional right - here, the right to marry - not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, Senior Counsel with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The lawsuit was filed today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.

"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Prop 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Prop 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place."

This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "onstitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.
Click to expand...

(Hat tip: Americablog)
 
I like Arc's suggestion. If the church wants to keep marriage, let em keep marriage. Recognize all unions legally as Civil Unions, that way there is no separate but equal bull shit.
 
Rayn said:
Fear-mongering by religious groups good game.
Click to expand...

That's what's sad. Being a Christian and seeing other Christians/religious groups go after other peoples way of life like it's evil. If you think they are going to go to hell, good for you. You can continue on and live your life the way you feel God wants you to. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Edit: Using "you" rhetorically, not saying "you" as in Rayn.
 
No no I see how it is Mire.... GOD! Nah, I kid, but yeah I was born and raised Catholic and am thoroughly disgusted at the moment with my faith.
 
religion or x person's title of the association has always been more of an action verb to me instead of a noun.

threats, pressure, etc. wouldn't come from a christian. I also don't see 90% of my family hounding me down for being a "terroist" either

It's the same reason why my Qu'ran wouldn't launch missles at a Buddhist temple. It's not in our way or scripture

It comes from idiots who can't accept difference, just remember Rayn that people of x practice can go against their beliefs and act or become non "X"-ish
 
prydaddy said:
I like Arc's suggestion. If the church wants to keep marriage, let em keep marriage. Recognize all unions legally as Civil Unions, that way there is no separate but equal bull shit.
Click to expand...

I disagree wholeheartedly. As much as churches like to squawk about their role in marriage and its history as a sacrament of the faith, the reality is that it's a secular institution in this nation. You can get married in a church with a priest or in an office building with a judge or on a wind-swept hill with thirty witch doctors shaking their asses in unison, but the certificate is issued by the state. Any meaning you pull from the church ceremony is completely subjective.

That's why it's important to constantly point out that gay people are fighting for civil marriage equality. It doesn't stop the Jesus People from freaking out and insisting that we're trying to force churches to perform ceremonies for us or we'll sue the preacher when he turns us down, but the Prop 8 nonsense shows how horrified they are that someone might be encroaching on their imagined turf.

Further, "marriage" has a very different connotation than "civil union." When you say "marriage" in this country, people automatically assume you mean two people who really like each other* made a loving commitment to stay together. The reality often falls short of that ideal, but people know what it means.

"Civil union" is largely meaningless. I could form a civil union with my sister or my mother or even my father. What the hell does that tell people about our relationship status? Not a thing. It's just another way of short-changing gay couples by paying lip service to the idea that their relationships have value without actually going the extra step and recognizing them.


* or got really drunk, or fooled around with Britney Spears, or got pregnant and want to hitch up "for the sake of the children" or other variations
 
Last edited:
See i am a champion for gay rights!!! as a straight person who refuses to get married because it has a religious connotation. I want to have a straight civil union.
 
prydaddy said:
I like Arc's suggestion. If the church wants to keep marriage, let em keep marriage. Recognize all unions legally as Civil Unions, that way there is no separate but equal bull shit.
Click to expand...

Civil Unions equals dependents as well as opening the door to group policies on insurance. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the businesses themselves helping lobby for this.
 
Halifirien said:
I disagree wholeheartedly. As much as churches like to squawk about their role in marriage and its history as a sacrament of the faith, the reality is that it's a secular institution in this nation. You can get married in a church with a priest or in an office building with a judge or on a wind-swept hill with thirty witch doctors shaking their asses in unison, but the certificate is issued by the state. Any meaning you pull from the church ceremony is completely subjective.
Click to expand...

That's actually a really good point, I never realized that. People get married all the times and just bring people with marriage licenses.

I don't know the facts of religion and such, but being an atheist, I'm strongly against Prop 8.

It's the Christians to be honest. Not all of them (like Mirewen) but those who want to protect the way God wanted it. Two of my ex-bosses are Hard Core christens and they're against gays in general. They still think it's a choice.
 
Genkaku said:
Seriously, what is the problem?

Hey, guess what, Gay people are gay. Yeah, they have gay sex. Sometimes they make love. Get used to it.

Does gay marriage effect me? Nope. Does it effect the workplace? Nope. Does it effect neighbours, friends, family, strangers or anyone else for that matter? Nope.

Holy flying dog shit. Let gay people get married. They're gonna do all those things married people do anyways.

Seriously, Grow up.

Sorry for the nature of this post, but this pisses me off.

*Edited for Language* >.>
Click to expand...

See, but you forgot gays aren't people. That's the thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top