MagicBlackCat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2008 04:58 pm
AZ has a prop just like it.

Religion has no place in government.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2008 11:12 pm
As of about 9:15pm, Prop 8 is leading 55 to 45 percent.
majikal
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 03:04 pm
@Shapeless,
It's done. Prop 8 passed.

I'm deeply saddened. I have lost faith in CA
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 08:28 pm
@majikal,
I was shocked. I didn't think it could happen again. Hopefully this will get to the supreme court, but not until after Obama makes some changes there.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 02:06 pm
@majikal,
Quote:
I'm deeply saddened. I have lost faith in CA


As have I. I went to bed on election night feeling pretty elated, but this put a slight damper on things the next morning.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 02:59 pm
@Shapeless,
Yes it is a sad affair and the gay communities here in California are still in
shock. Around here, most voting stations where in church halls and the
"Yes on 8" signs were placed quite prominently everywhere around the churches, influencing voters through the last seconds. Nonetheless, I would
have hoped we Californians are more tolerant than this.

It was disheartening to see the faces of the gay couples they interviewed on
local TV - very sad indeed.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:08 pm
@OGIONIK,
OGIONIK wrote:

this country is a mesh of customs from across the entirety of the globe.


if i had the energy i would vote for gay amrriage to be allowed. seriously, its nobodies business but their own.

who are we to deny them pursuit of their happiness? hrmm, the constitution states it pretty clearly.

The question is whether the state should actually formally endorse gay marriages, by issuing licenses for them. We're under no obligation to endorse a practice which has been considered invalid in every country since the dawn of time.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:08 pm
@Eorl,
Eorl wrote:

Why would anyone resist the idea of allowing gay marriage? Why would anyone think it's their business? Why would anyone think it was the goverments business?

Oh, wait, that's right...Religion. (insert 3 ominous descending minor chords)

I'm a lifelong atheist, and I'm against it. Try again.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:10 pm
@majikal,
majikal wrote:

For a long time it was "custom" for blacks to be property.
For many years it was "custom" to not allow women to vote.
At one time it was "custom" to marry within your own race.

Hardly a proof that endorsement of this particular practice is desirable, unless you believe that all prevailing traditions are necessarily wrong.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:12 pm
@Ferostie,
Ferostie wrote:

Separation of church and state.

It has nothing to do with the church, except that there is a tendency for religious Christians to be against gay marriage. I am an atheist and I'm against it too.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:13 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Ferostie wrote:

Separation of church and state.

It has nothing to do with the church, except that there is a tendency for religious Christians to be against gay marriage. I am an atheist and I'm against it too.


Why are you against it?
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:23 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Ferostie wrote:

Separation of church and state.

It has nothing to do with the church, except that there is a tendency for religious Christians to be against gay marriage. I am an atheist and I'm against it too.


Why are you against it?

I think that evolution created gender, reproduction, and sexual attraction so that people of opposite genders could combine to have offspring, and that homosexuality is some sort of malfunction of the biological systems involved. That being said, I have no desire to interfere with gay people leading whatever lifestyle makes them happy, but I wouldn't carry it as far as a formal government endorsement of the lifestyle.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:35 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
The question is whether the state should actually formally endorse gay marriages, by issuing licenses for them. We're under no obligation to endorse a practice which has been considered invalid in every country since the dawn of time.


You're wrong, Brandon. You can't even define the issue.

Our government, whether it be our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.

In California, however, a very small majority of the people voted to write DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."

Everyone who voted for STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION of an entire class of people ought to be ashamed. What was unjustly done will eventually be remedied, but it is outrageous that an entire class of people must suffer in the meantime due to your hateful ignorance.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:42 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The question is whether the state should actually formally endorse gay marriages, by issuing licenses for them. We're under no obligation to endorse a practice which has been considered invalid in every country since the dawn of time.


You're wrong, Brandon. You can't even define the issue.

Our government, whether it be our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.

In California, however, a very small majority of the people voted to write DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."

Everyone who voted for STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION of an entire class of people ought to be ashamed. What was unjustly done will eventually be remedied, but it is outrageous that an entire class of people must suffer in the meantime due to your hateful ignorance.

Serving all people on an equal basis doesn't mean letting anyone do anything he wants. All people have the right at a certain age to marry someone of the opposite sex. What, for example, if very young minors wanted to be allowed to marry? In your world view, must we permit that too or else be discriminating against them? The mere fact that someone wishes to do something doesn't mean that the request has to be granted.
Shapeless
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 04:01 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
I think that evolution created gender, reproduction, and sexual attraction so that people of opposite genders could combine to have offspring, and that homosexuality is some sort of malfunction of the biological systems involved.


That sounds like a rationalization rather than a reason. If government is to ban marriages that do not conform to the biological systems for which evolution created gender, reproduction, and sexual attraction, then government should not legally recognize marriages that produce no children or marriages of convenience either. If you're going to snub one "malfunction" in the system, you might as well be consistent and snub all of them.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 04:36 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The question is whether the state should actually formally endorse gay marriages, by issuing licenses for them. We're under no obligation to endorse a practice which has been considered invalid in every country since the dawn of time.


You're wrong, Brandon. You can't even define the issue.

Our government, whether it be our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.

In California, however, a very small majority of the people voted to write DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."

Everyone who voted for STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION of an entire class of people ought to be ashamed. What was unjustly done will eventually be remedied, but it is outrageous that an entire class of people must suffer in the meantime due to your hateful ignorance.

Serving all people on an equal basis doesn't mean letting anyone do anything he wants. All people have the right at a certain age to marry someone of the opposite sex. What, for example, if very young minors wanted to be allowed to marry? In your world view, must we permit that too or else be discriminating against them? The mere fact that someone wishes to do something doesn't mean that the request has to be granted.


I never said that the equal protection clauses of our federal and state constitutions mean that "anyone" can "do anything he wants." I never said, "in my world view, we must permit minors to marry." You created straw man arguments to attack.

Like freedom of speech, marriage is a fundamental CIVIL right. Under our system of government (a constitutional republic), the state cannot discriminate against an entire class of people simply because the state wants to do so. State sponsored discrimination must serve a COMPELLING state interest and the means used must be narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest. The state has NO legitimate interest whatsoever in denying gay couples the right to marry. On the other hand, the state has a compelling interest in protecting children. Requiring minors to wait until they reach a certain age to marry isn't denying them the right, it's only postponing it until (hopefully) they are mature enough to give their consent.
majikal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 05:42 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra, I ask you because you're very well versed in law (a practicing attorney i would assume), whats next? Where does CA go from here, in a legal sense?
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:10 pm
@majikal,
Does anyone know anything about this bit of video? It seems to show a demonstrator (protesting the ban on same-sex marriage) being beaten.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7713334.stm
majikal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 07:12 pm
@littlek,
I saw it on youtube. From what I've heard (this is just hearsay), the protester that is shown being beaten was on one of the cop cars and he/she was pulled off and when they attempted to restrain him/her, he/she resisted, prompting them to subdue the person with batons.

It seems to me that 3 or 4 police officers should have been able to subdue the subject without the use of batons, but I'm not a police officer, and I wasn't there.
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 07:36 pm
@majikal,
I knew there'd be a reason, but there were a few extra sucker punches it seemed.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2020 at 09:43:17