The Truth on Prop 8, and what it means.

This is how I see it...

If white Americans outnumbered Black Americans 10-1, does that mean the majority can vote to repeal the rights of Black people?

A civil marriage between two men or two women has no bearing on anyone but themselves. It has nothing to do with religion, it is a legal partnership guaranteeing equal rights.

The majority all voting to deny a minority basic rights in this day and age is disgraceful. Every heterosexual in every state in which this has happened should feel utterly ashamed and embarrassed.

It astounds me that so many people would deny a whole section of their community basic rights and equality. It's just crazy.

As for requesting an emotionless thread, it's not going to happen. This is an immensely emotive subject, especially for gay people. How would you feel if your entire state voted to deny you your basic rights?

I'd be on the first bus out of town to a decent state that isn't filled with so much ignorance.

I have to disagree on two points, which are major:

First of all, the majority rule should not infringe upon the rights of a minority. Here is something from usinfo.state.gov...

"Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove."

And two, it is a fallacy that one man and one woman has defined marriage throughout history. A Bible will tell you this much, especially the Old Testament. Men were often allowed to have multiple wives. Women were also considered property, and marriage was a transaction if you will.

Just a couple of points as a bit of food for thought

The voter turnout was 68.6% which means that the majority didn't vote in favour of prop 8, only a majority of those who turned out to vote.

This means that nearly 1/3 of voters didn't vote for one reason or another, and I assume that there is a good reason for this.

The second point (on a more conspiratorial note) is that much of the news regarding the prop 8 vote has centred on african american voters, voting about 2-1 in favour of prop 8, which has been widely reported in the MSM and various political blogs.

If you want to see for yourself, do a search with "voter turnout prop 8"

I find this quite worrying, as it seems to pit 2 "minorities" against one another, and looks as though it is preparing the ground for somewhere to lay the "blame".

The Knights of Columbus, The Mormons worked towards the same goal, which suggests a degree of co-operation I find surprising.

BUT, perhaps the most worrying aspect is the involvement of Blackwater in fundrasing and activism.

Forgive my cynicism, but as soon as an entity with government ties comes into the picture, I become suspicious.

I posted an article in the breaking mews thread about this, which can be read there.

If needs be, I'll post it here as well, if people can't find it or erm

[edit on 17/11/2008 by budski]

Mercenary2007, the last 2 posts on pg 1 are great.
Thank you for that information.

If white Americans outnumbered Black Americans 10-1, does that mean the majority can vote to repeal the rights of Black people?

No

because

Amendment IX

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

A vote on taking away the rights of:
Religion
Skin Color
Ethnicity

and others

GetOutOfMyRabbitHole,

First of all, the majority rule should not infringe upon the rights of a minority

Does that mean the illegitimate ruling of the few(in this case, 4 people) should preside over the constitutional-back Will of the People. Because Government is supposed to be, For the people, By the people , and to protect the people.

Not the rule and decry of the few


budski,

The voter turnout was 68.6% which means that the majority didn't vote in favour of prop 8, only a majority of those who turned out to vote.
This means that nearly 1/3 of voters didn't vote for one reason or another, and I assume that there is a good reason for this.

The voter turnout in the national was about that. And about the same from the '04 election.
A lot of people do not vote in the USA.
Who knows why, but i am sure they all will give you a reason.

People can CHOOSE not to vote... so about 30% of the people 'Choose' to not vote, and I am in not in favor of compulsory voting.

The second point (on a more conspiratorial note) is that much of the news regarding the prop 8 vote has centred on african american voters, voting about 2-1 in favour of prop 8, which has been widely reported in the MSM and various political blogs.

Yup...
The news is lying, right to our faces for... well thats another topic...

The turnout of Black voters on prop 8 was 7/10 yes on prop 8. But this is not said in the MSM.

The entire election cycle leading up to this election, every media outlet was saying it was not going to pass. Some state legislators even worked as hard as they could, to try to make sure Prop 8 never made it to the ballot box

Local news was showing WILD parties in the Streets of the Castro district on election late night

The Knights of Columbus, The Mormons

Just 2 religious groups...
There was MILLIONS of $$$ spent on prop 8. $70 million...
Thats just insane.

BUT, perhaps the most worrying aspect is the involvement of Blackwater in fundrasing and activism.

Yea... i did not see that... That might be intresting to see... ill check that out... Blackwater... who were they giving money to... and why... now there is something that does not make sense.

I looked at your threads, and i didn't see it... you can send me the link, or post it... that story sounds intresting..



[edit on 11/17/2008 by TKainZero]

Erik Prince's mother actually contributed the money, but I have read stories that this was a front for Erik Prince contributing - I'll try and dig them up.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting article about some of the money.

Another interesting article here which addresses another point raised in my previous post.

[edit on 18/11/2008 by budski]

You should check out this video which i think stemmed from the "stress" gays had from the decision by California's voters. Pretty hateful and fascist if you ask me...

Originally posted by detachedindividual
If white Americans outnumbered Black Americans 10-1, does that mean the majority can vote to repeal the rights of Black people?

Whites currently outnumber the Blacks in America by about a 5.5 to 1 margin already. There are U.S. Constitutional amendments in place securing such rights, those would have to be repealed by the already in place processes.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So theoretically, such a thing could happen. There is a reason Amendment processes are set up the way they are. Changing the Constitution requires the vast amount of Americans agreeing on the same thing to do so. It is supposed to be very hard to add to or change the Constitution, witnesses the Equal Rights Amendment. If that didn't pass, what makes proponents of same sex marriages think that will muster enough votes?

To equate "protected class" status on the whole Same Sex marriage debate is a disservice to the term. The vast majority of states and nations do not consider it to be so. It (Sexual orientation) is not, nor never has been, a "protected class" in the Federal sense. Take a look if you doubt me.

You are claiming a right, that quite honestly, is not there in the laws. Just because you say it should be, does not make it so, you have to pass the legislation or get the amendments done.

If you want to change things, go about it in the proscribed fashion. That's basically what I am saying. You don't like a law, work to get it changed properly. You don't like an amendment, work to get it repealed properly. To have the Courts act in this matter of Constitutional amendment, is a very dangerous slope to go down. Be careful of what you wish for.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by pavil]

Originally posted by TKainZero

First of all, the majority rule should not infringe upon the rights of a minority

Does that mean the illegitimate ruling of the few(in this case, 4 people) should preside over the constitutional-back Will of the People. Because Government is supposed to be, For the people, By the people , and to protect the people.

Not the rule and decry of the few

[edit on 11/17/2008 by TKainZero]

You just can't seem to understand, can you TKain?

You seem to have abandonned a previous thread wherein I put te following question to you.:

Let's try this;



Suppose "Will of the People" (as you put it), through the electorial initiative process, decided that, henceforth


Muslims would no longer be allowed to have "children", as defined under the various statutes and laws applicable.

Children born to Muslim parents would become wards of the State. Their biological progenitors would have no say in their upbringing, and would enjoy only some of the legal or monetary benefits available to the parents of children from other origins.



Various rationalizations would, of course, have been proffered to support the placement and passage of this new law/constitutional amendment.


Muslims, and their various "liberal" supporters, would be up in arms over the law's passage, and would take to the streets in droves to protest.




Would you support:

the "Constitutionaly-backed 'Will of the People' to deny potential Muslim parents a right "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process"?


Or would you, in this case, support:

the "Fascists" on the State Supreme Court in over-turning the proposition, against the "Will of the People"?




And if you Still can't (or won't) grasp the paralells presented by these issues,



...Then perhaps you neither understand, nor deserve, the "individual liberty and personal autonomy" those "Fascist" Justices were trying to protect (when they ruled that Propsition 22 was unconstitutional).

You keep harping on "The will of the People", yet you seem blind to the fact that it is the Will of the People which established the constitution as the over-arching foundation, guide, and touchstone for all the laws set forth under it.


Time and again it has been explained that what is at stake Is Not merely the opportunity for same-sex couples to be "married".




What IS at stake is whether "the Will of the People" will be used to set a legal precedent whereby the Principle of EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW is forfeitted.


The reat is nothing but a sugar-coated "morality play" designed to fool the unconscious masses into believing that the gates to the slaughtering pens are the gates to Heaven!


And you seem to be buying it!


[edit on 24-11-2008 by Bhadhidar]