Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
As it stands, apply for a license to marry.

Simply applying for a license does not give someone a right. What must a person do to GAIN the right to marry?

I think gay people should be allowed to marry. When I am dating, I always tell my girlfriends I am gay so they will try extra hard to convert me.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Apparently one must not stray too far from the accepted norm whether or not that means completely denying one's own self. Lets just hope that none of us run further afoul of the moral majority lest we have our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness taken away as well.

reply to post by Shadowflux


There is certainly a case for that, and you are quite right to make it.

All I'm saying is that the voters of California have straight up thrown out the idea of gay marriage.

I'm just wondering why liberals seem to think that barring certain rights (eg firearms, freedom from repressive taxation) is OK, but barring other rights (eg rights of gays to get married/ adopt) is not OK.

Anyway, this is not really the time for this discussion. Change has come to America in the form of Barack Obama... let's see what he does with it and if he can convince the American people to vote otherwise.

This truly is a step back. We as a nation came out yesterday in massive numbers to vote. I thought that the majority being youths we would be able to change the protestant views and be able to look at this issue from a more modern standpoint. Unfortunately it failed and not in California those of the same sex who love each other are only allowed to get civil unions.

-Ign0RanT

I wouldn't really worry about it, caballero. The Kalifornia government has already proven with the previous same sex marriage vote that was overturned they will not listen to the population that is supposed to control and direct them. Welcome to the Socialist ideal that Obama is going to bring to the entire United States.

I'm sad to hear this and completely baffled by the whole issue.

First of all, I don't beleive govt. has the right to say who should or shouldn't marry anyway. It was only a few decades ago in some places that they legalized interacial marraiges, remember. Marraige is a spiritual practice, so I think that government should step back and let the union be between the 2 people involved and whatever church denomination they follow. But of course they see it as a tax-cow.

Likewise who applies for insurance, gets hospital visitations, or has children--that shouldn't be the government's right to decide, but the individual's.

Then I have to ask, with heterosexual marraige on the decline and better than 50% divorce rate.... who do we really have to protect it from?

reply to post by 44soulslayer


I just want to say that I'm am by no means at all a liberal. I'm an American and I strongly disagree with the banning of ANY right and vehemently oppose the imposition of inequality in ANY way. I believe in the ideals of America: Freedom, Justice, and Equality.

No one is denying same-sex couples the right to have a relationship. You just can't make a legal binding relationship contract between same sex partners. Tell me, what is the benefit to the state of a contractual relationship between two men or two women? It's clear what the benefit of man/woman unions are.

reply to post by dbates


Well...

-More marriage-liscence taxes
-Perhaps less of an overpopulation problem
-An initial spurt to the economy as more weddings are planned

I don't know how true those are though.

I don't live in CA, but I would have voted for prop 8 if I did.

Gay activists talk about it with the rhetoric of "rights," but what they are really demanding is the right to redefine a fundamental cultural institution.

Name for me a time in western civilization when gay marriage was the norm, or even legal. The Romans didn't practice it, except for a few megalomaniac emperors like Nero and Caligula. The Greeks never practiced gay marriage, even though some greek states (athens at the time of aristotle) were tolerant of paedophilia. But not gay marriage.

But 10,000 years and hundreds of varied cultures were "wrong" if you listen to the radical gay left. It is 3% who are "intelligent and right," and the other 97% majority who are "hopelessly bigoted and ignorant."

Demanding the "right" to radically redefine a major institution is like me, demanding the right redefine what a birth certificate means---say, demanding a legal birth certificate for my imaginary friend. You might say that a birth certificate doesn't apply to imaginary people--it's only for actual humans. But if you did you'd be oppressing me with your societal norms. you bigot, you.

Or me, as a protestant, suing the catholics because they haven't made me pope. Never mind that the papacy doesn't apply to me, and I don't live the lifestyle (catholicism) required to be pope---I want it now! So you'd better redefine what it means to be a pope, or catholic, so I can bee one too! It's my right to be pope, equal on every level with that old nazi dude in rome! Ouch--Your oppressing me, you bigot!!!!!

See, it's all about what I want, not about what society wants!!! Society exists to serve me and my friends. Not some religious concept of a mythical "collective good."

Not yet. Its in the lead but there are over 3000000 mail in ballots etc left ot count.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I'm just wondering why liberals seem to think that barring certain rights (eg firearms, freedom from repressive taxation) is OK, but barring other rights (eg rights of gays to get married/ adopt) is not OK.

I am not a liberal either. I STRONGLY support the Constitution and all rights enumerated therein! In fact, that's why I support gay marriage. I believe to deny it is against the Constitution.

Amendment XIV

Amendment XIV

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

Bill of Rights

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So, according the the 14th Amendment, gay people are citizens and no law shall be made to abridge the privileges OR deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person equal protection of the laws.

And the 9th Amendment says that just because certain rights are stated in the Constitution, that doesn't mean that other rights are not granted. In other words. The right of marriage, even though it's not explicitly given in the Constitution, should not be denied and is retained by the people.

A state law, denying citizens the right to marry is unconstitutional.

Obama does not support gay marriage. It's one place I disagree with him.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by dbates
Tell me, what is the benefit to the state of a contractual relationship between two men or two women?

I'm not sure there is a benefit to the state. Is that a requirement of marriage?

It's clear what the benefit of man/woman unions are.

I'm not so clear on it. Would you expand on that? Thanks.

The people of California have spoken and right or wrong the decision should be respected.

Democracy at its finest.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Amendment XIV

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

Bill of Rights

So, according the the 14th Amendment, gay people are citizens and no law shall be made to abridge the privileges OR deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person equal protection of the laws.
him.

I have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. So do gay people.

I do not have the right to mary a person of the SAME sex. neither do gay people.

See, that's equal application of the laws. The same for everybody.




[edit on 5-11-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

Originally posted by jam321
The people of California have spoken and right or wrong the decision should be respected.

If the state of California voted that black people should be slaves, it would also be unconstitutional. A state cannot make a law that goes against the Constitution. A simple majority cannot vote to deny people their Constitutional rights.

Not constitutionally.

If the majority of people voted to ban guns, it would also be unconstitutional. That's not Democracy. That's majority rule.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Where do you get that right? Where is this right specified? Where is the restriction (of the opposite sex) specified?

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

That sucks about Prop 8 but I'm more upset about
Prop 5 not passing.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

A state cannot make a law that goes against the Constitution.

you are correct.

But until the law is declared unconstitutional, it is still a law that has to be obeyed and respected.

Was the DC handgun law not in effect for a long time before it was finally declared unconstitutional? I am sure many people lost their weapons or got arrested because it was a legal law at the time.

reply to post by jam321


I'm glad to see we agree.

I hope it will be declared unconstitutional and we can move past this discrimination. Same-sex couples, simply because of their choice of partner, are denied a marriage license. Automatically. That's discrimination.

Healthy, adult, responsible, non-related people apply for a marriage license and they are denied, because the healthy, adult, responsible, non-related person that they want to marry is of the same gender.

Marriage licenses should not be issued or withheld based on the gender of your partner. That's discrimination.