Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I want to clarify something, because Strike is so eager to accuse me of name-calling.

Many people who don't believe in gay marriage, perhaps a majority, do so because their religious or moral values have taught them that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My own father in law believes this, as do many people that I respect. These people are not bigots, and they do not deserve to be called bigots or intolerant, though I sharply disagree with them on this issue.

However, their voice in this matter does contribute to an atmosphere of bigotry against homosexuals. That was not the intention of well-meaning individuals who voted for Prop 8, but it is the result nonetheless, IMO. This is why I said that bigotry ruled the day, and why I suggested that these sort of decisions ought to be out of the hands of the public to decide.

I take strong exception to the idea that I regard those who disagree with me in this matter or any other matter I have discussed here as bigots, racists, idiots, etc. I do not engage in name-calling and have little tolerance for those who do.

 

[B-Deep]

I want to clarify something, because Strike is so eager to accuse me of name-calling.Many people who don't believe in gay marriage, perhaps a majority, do so because their religious or moral values have taught them that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My own father in law believes this, as do many people that I respect. These people are not bigots, and they do not deserve to be called bigots or intolerant, though I sharply disagree with them on this issue.However, their voice in this matter does contribute to an atmosphere of bigotry against homosexuals. That was not the intention of well-meaning individuals who voted for Prop 8, but it is the result nonetheless, IMO. This is why I said that bigotry ruled the day, and why I suggested that these sort of decisions ought to be out of the hands of the public to decide. I take strong exception to the idea that I regard those who disagree with me in this matter or any other matter I have discussed here as bigots, racists, idiots, etc. I do not engage in name-calling and have little tolerance for those who do.

you broke your oath, your words are now meaningless to meOATH BREAKER!!!!

 

[adonis]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

I'd say that the majority, vast majority, of Americans recognize that definition of marriage, which is a big part of the hangup.

So let me get this straight. You think if you asked Americans what the definition of marriage is, the vast majority would say "a covenant with God". Is that correct?

I think that God would certainly play a part of their definition, as would going to a church, and having a preacher do the ceremony.

You do realize that this cannot be the legal definition of marriage?

Yes. Do you realize I'm just saying what I believe most people think of when they think of marriage? Most christian americans. I'm not talking about law, or even a written definition, but just what pops into peoples heads when they think of marriage. It's man, woman, church, altar, preacher, reads from bible, pronounces man and wife, walk down aisle, go to reception, fornication, honeymoon, married bliss....then 50% of the time, divorce...you know, the typical thing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

I'd say that the majority, vast majority, of Americans recognize that definition of marriage, which is a big part of the hangup.

You think the vast majority of Americans don't think I'm married? I've never had anyone say that to me.

That's not what I said. I said the vast majority of americans believe, without much thinking, that marriage is an agreement between man/woman and God. I bet, if you're straight, they pay less than no attention to you or your marriage...they just assume you're like they are.

What if I tell them that I'm an athiest? Then will they say I'm not married?

They don't care about you. See, this is where Adonis has got it wrong, I believe. The religious right can talk all they want about marriage being a convenant with God, but if that were the case, they would be just as violently against divorce as they are against this issue. The real issue here is homosexuality.

The religious right is against divorce, but in their eyes, some sins are worse than others. Divorce is not "disgusting" to them, or "an abomination before the lord" to them. They have a particular place in their hearts reserved for denying gay people recognition in the form of marriage. It's there. It's something that was stirred up in them based in large part on personal disgust surrounding gay sex, and what gay people do behind closed doors, and the effeminate nature of gay men....it just makes them feel icky, and they get all up in arms about it. That's most of the strong opponents, many others just don't like the idea and will oppose it.They're also supposed to be against lying, drunkeness, etc but you don't see them legislating honesty or no alcohol (anymore). They pick and choose what they want to fight...and gay rights is right up there.Circumvent the major defense they have. Don't engage on the battlefield of marriage, and a compromise can be reached sooner than later, and without all the backlash that an "activist court" would bring if the supreme court made it the law of the land.

I realize that California is different, but please!!!!!The states that have altered their definitions of marriage the last forty years to deny gay marriage have generally also explicitly stated that nothing else that resembled marriage, including but not limited to Civil Unions were to be considered the equivalent of marriage. Stop allowing the bigots to pull the wool over your eyes that they would really accept some kind of compromise.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I want to clarify something, because Strike is so eager to accuse me of name-calling.

Many people who don't believe in gay marriage, perhaps a majority, do so because their religious or moral values have taught them that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My own father in law believes this, as do many people that I respect. These people are not bigots, and they do not deserve to be called bigots or intolerant, though I sharply disagree with them on this issue.

However, their voice in this matter does contribute to an atmosphere of bigotry against homosexuals. That was not the intention of well-meaning individuals who voted for Prop 8, but it is the result nonetheless, IMO. This is why I said that bigotry ruled the day, and why I suggested that these sort of decisions ought to be out of the hands of the public to decide.

I take strong exception to the idea that I regard those who disagree with me in this matter or any other matter I have discussed here as bigots, racists, idiots, etc. I do not engage in name-calling and have little tolerance for those who do.

See bolded above. How? As far as your name calling yes you do. You've done the same thing on other topics and, quite honestly I'm tired of it since I'm right in the cross hairs. I'm sick of your generalizations, and I don't see how it contributes to the discussion of the actual ISSUES. How does calling people names contribute to an intelligent discussion?

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify something, because Strike is so eager to accuse me of name-calling.Many people who don't believe in gay marriage, perhaps a majority, do so because their religious or moral values have taught them that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My own father in law believes this, as do many people that I respect. These people are not bigots, and they do not deserve to be called bigots or intolerant, though I sharply disagree with them on this issue.However, their voice in this matter does contribute to an atmosphere of bigotry against homosexuals. That was not the intention of well-meaning individuals who voted for Prop 8, but it is the result nonetheless, IMO. This is why I said that bigotry ruled the day, and why I suggested that these sort of decisions ought to be out of the hands of the public to decide. I take strong exception to the idea that I regard those who disagree with me in this matter or any other matter I have discussed here as bigots, racists, idiots, etc. I do not engage in name-calling and have little tolerance for those who do.

you broke your oath, your words are now meaningless to meOATH BREAKER!!!!

mea culpa. I'm really embarrassed about that. And as it turns out, I couldn't even bring myself to vote for Barr.In this instance, you're perfectly correct to think the worst of me.

 

[adonis]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

I'd say that the majority, vast majority, of Americans recognize that definition of marriage, which is a big part of the hangup.

You think the vast majority of Americans don't think I'm married? I've never had anyone say that to me.

That's not what I said. I said the vast majority of americans believe, without much thinking, that marriage is an agreement between man/woman and God. I bet, if you're straight, they pay less than no attention to you or your marriage...they just assume you're like they are.

What if I tell them that I'm an athiest? Then will they say I'm not married?

They don't care about you. See, this is where Adonis has got it wrong, I believe. The religious right can talk all they want about marriage being a convenant with God, but if that were the case, they would be just as violently against divorce as they are against this issue. The real issue here is homosexuality.

The religious right is against divorce, but in their eyes, some sins are worse than others. Divorce is not "disgusting" to them, or "an abomination before the lord" to them. They have a particular place in their hearts reserved for denying gay people recognition in the form of marriage. It's there. It's something that was stirred up in them based in large part on personal disgust surrounding gay sex, and what gay people do behind closed doors, and the effeminate nature of gay men....it just makes them feel icky, and they get all up in arms about it. That's most of the strong opponents, many others just don't like the idea and will oppose it.They're also supposed to be against lying, drunkeness, etc but you don't see them legislating honesty or no alcohol (anymore). They pick and choose what they want to fight...and gay rights is right up there.Circumvent the major defense they have. Don't engage on the battlefield of marriage, and a compromise can be reached sooner than later, and without all the backlash that an "activist court" would bring if the supreme court made it the law of the land.

I realize that California is different, but please!!!!!The states that have altered their definitions of marriage the last forty years to deny gay marriage have generally also explicitly stated that nothing else that resembled marriage, including but not limited to Civil Unions were to be considered the equivalent of marriage. Stop allowing the bigots to pull the wool over your eyes that they would really accept some kind of compromise.

I'm saying, take it from the government, talk about restructuring benefits to married couples, do it under a new concept of "Civil unions", put heterosexuals into that group, and pass legislation that requires benefits from civil unions to be extended to all people regardless of sex, creed, race, or sexual orientation. It's fine if it's prompted by a court case.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

I'd say that the majority, vast majority, of Americans recognize that definition of marriage, which is a big part of the hangup.

So let me get this straight. You think if you asked Americans what the definition of marriage is, the vast majority would say "a covenant with God". Is that correct?

I think that God would certainly play a part of their definition, as would going to a church, and having a preacher do the ceremony.

You do realize that this cannot be the legal definition of marriage?

You do realize he's saying there should be no legal definition of marriage?

Maybe there shouldn't be any linking of government benefits or whatever to the contract of marriage, but to argue that there shouldn't be any legal definition of what is and what is not a legal marriage contract is something I'd like to see argued in such a way that doesn't automatically allow church's to perform gay marriages.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

I'd say that the majority, vast majority, of Americans recognize that definition of marriage, which is a big part of the hangup.

So let me get this straight. You think if you asked Americans what the definition of marriage is, the vast majority would say "a covenant with God". Is that correct?

I think that God would certainly play a part of their definition, as would going to a church, and having a preacher do the ceremony.

You do realize that this cannot be the legal definition of marriage?

Yes. Do you realize I'm just saying what I believe most people think of when they think of marriage? Most christian americans. I'm not talking about law, or even a written definition, but just what pops into peoples heads when they think of marriage. It's man, woman, church, altar, preacher, reads from bible, pronounces man and wife, walk down aisle, go to reception, fornication, honeymoon, married bliss....then 50% of the time, divorce...you know, the typical thing.

So what? I doubt most American's, Christian or otherwise understand the legal definition of many other words also. Words that are deeply rooted in their religious beliefs. Why are we valuing ignorance over definitions over people?

 

[Disco Stu]

Yes. Do you realize I'm just saying what I believe most people think of when they think of marriage? Most christian americans. I'm not talking about law, or even a written definition, but just what pops into peoples heads when they think of marriage. It's man, woman, church, altar, preacher, reads from bible, pronounces man and wife, walk down aisle, go to reception, fornication, honeymoon, married bliss....then 50% of the time, divorce...you know, the typical thing.

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify something, because Strike is so eager to accuse me of name-calling.

Many people who don't believe in gay marriage, perhaps a majority, do so because their religious or moral values have taught them that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My own father in law believes this, as do many people that I respect. These people are not bigots, and they do not deserve to be called bigots or intolerant, though I sharply disagree with them on this issue.

However, their voice in this matter does contribute to an atmosphere of bigotry against homosexuals. That was not the intention of well-meaning individuals who voted for Prop 8, but it is the result nonetheless, IMO. This is why I said that bigotry ruled the day, and why I suggested that these sort of decisions ought to be out of the hands of the public to decide.

I take strong exception to the idea that I regard those who disagree with me in this matter or any other matter I have discussed here as bigots, racists, idiots, etc. I do not engage in name-calling and have little tolerance for those who do.

See bolded above. How? As far as your name calling yes you do. You've done the same thing on other topics and, quite honestly I'm tired of it since I'm right in the cross hairs. I'm sick of your generalizations, and I don't see how it contributes to the discussion of the actual ISSUES. How does calling people names contribute to an intelligent discussion?

As for your first question, I tried to answer it before. Not allowing gays to marry violates their rights under the 14th Amendment. It gives those who are prejudiced against gays a legal (and perhaps moral) justification for doing so. If you wish to argue this point, fine, let's do so. But it was NOT my intent to call you or anyone else a bigot.As to your second point, I agree with you. Calling people names does NOT contribute to intelligent discussion. In the last ten minutes, you have accused me of doing this on other topics three times now. Each time, I have asked you to name me an example. I honestly don't believe I am guilty of this. If I am, I will apologize immediately, because it IS wrong, for me or anyone else. But I have yet to hear an actual example.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Marriage is a covenant with God. It carries with it legal obligations. Gay people want not only the legal obligations that come with it, but also the blessing of God.

I know a ton if gay people. None of them are concerned with that. If you voted because of that, you have made a huge assumption that is pretty off base. Much as you guys keep trying to make it a religious issue, the homosexual community is interested in civil rights. It's why you and they will never understand each other. They don't get why you keep seeing things that are not religious (to them) in religious terms while you cannot see how they don't.

Gay people want to be married, because that's what they've always dreamed of and everyone else does it. I have no problem with gay people, I have gay friends, I support gay unions and even gay marriage. But I also recognize the challenges surrounding it, and I'm saying that the best way, in my own opinion, to produce the most rapid and effective change here, is to make all unions recognized by the government "civil unions", and relegate the concept of "marriage" to church services.Marriage carries with it a strong religious attachment in the minds of many many americans, and resistance comes from this group. The resistance would still be there, likely, even with civil unions, but I don't think it'd be as strong. They've fortified the idea of the word of "marriage", put all their eggs into the basket of saying "we want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman" or something like that, but if we strip out the word marriage, and make it a civil rights issue, I think the battle becomes much more manageable.

I see where you are coming from now. I got you and I don't know you are wrong in terms of it being a much more manageable fight. But I see where you are at with it and respect the point.Semantics are a pain.

 

[adonis]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

I'd say that the majority, vast majority, of Americans recognize that definition of marriage, which is a big part of the hangup.

So let me get this straight. You think if you asked Americans what the definition of marriage is, the vast majority would say "a covenant with God". Is that correct?

I think that God would certainly play a part of their definition, as would going to a church, and having a preacher do the ceremony.

You do realize that this cannot be the legal definition of marriage?

Yes. Do you realize I'm just saying what I believe most people think of when they think of marriage? Most christian americans. I'm not talking about law, or even a written definition, but just what pops into peoples heads when they think of marriage. It's man, woman, church, altar, preacher, reads from bible, pronounces man and wife, walk down aisle, go to reception, fornication, honeymoon, married bliss....then 50% of the time, divorce...you know, the typical thing.

So what? I doubt most American's, Christian or otherwise understand the legal definition of many other words also. Words that are deeply rooted in their religious beliefs. Why are we valuing ignorance over definitions over people?

Because we live in a democracy where the public has a big say in the direction and laws of our country. If we see the word "marriage" as the big obstacle here, and it doesn't need to be, we would be smart to circumvent it, and find a new way to solve the problem, rather than take the opposition on head-on in a battle they're ready for.

 

[T Bell]

Oops, Prop8

 

[StrikeS2k]

As for your first question, I tried to answer it before. Not allowing gays to marry violates their rights under the 14th Amendment. [it gives those who are prejudiced against gays a legal (and perhaps moral) justification for doing so. If you wish to argue this point, fine, let's do so. But it was NOT my intent to call you or anyone else a bigot.

As to your second point, I agree with you. Calling people names does NOT contribute to intelligent discussion. In the last ten minutes, you have accused me of doing this on other topics three times now. Each time, I have asked you to name me an example. I honestly don't believe I am guilty of this. If I am, I will apologize immediately, because it IS wrong, for me or anyone else. But I have yet to hear an actual example.

I gave you an example in this thread. You ignored it. What did you mean when you said bigotry won?

 

[Disco Stu]

As for your first question, I tried to answer it before. Not allowing gays to marry violates their rights under the 14th Amendment. [it gives those who are prejudiced against gays a legal (and perhaps moral) justification for doing so. If you wish to argue this point, fine, let's do so. But it was NOT my intent to call you or anyone else a bigot.

As to your second point, I agree with you. Calling people names does NOT contribute to intelligent discussion. In the last ten minutes, you have accused me of doing this on other topics three times now. Each time, I have asked you to name me an example. I honestly don't believe I am guilty of this. If I am, I will apologize immediately, because it IS wrong, for me or anyone else. But I have yet to hear an actual example.

I gave you an example in this thread. You ignored it. What did you mean when you said bigotry won?

He has explained it several times. You don't have to agree with the distinction, but he was pretty clear IMO.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

I'd say that the majority, vast majority, of Americans recognize that definition of marriage, which is a big part of the hangup.

So let me get this straight. You think if you asked Americans what the definition of marriage is, the vast majority would say "a covenant with God". Is that correct?

I think that God would certainly play a part of their definition, as would going to a church, and having a preacher do the ceremony.

You do realize that this cannot be the legal definition of marriage?

Yes. Do you realize I'm just saying what I believe most people think of when they think of marriage? Most christian americans. I'm not talking about law, or even a written definition, but just what pops into peoples heads when they think of marriage. It's man, woman, church, altar, preacher, reads from bible, pronounces man and wife, walk down aisle, go to reception, fornication, honeymoon, married bliss....then 50% of the time, divorce...you know, the typical thing.

So what? I doubt most American's, Christian or otherwise understand the legal definition of many other words also. Words that are deeply rooted in their religious beliefs. Why are we valuing ignorance over definitions over people?

Because we live in a democracy where the public has a big say in the direction and laws of our country. If we see the word "marriage" as the big obstacle here, and it doesn't need to be, we would be smart to circumvent it, and find a new way to solve the problem, rather than take the opposition on head-on in a battle they're ready for.

The battle over the word is just a means to sucker people who aren't really bigoted or prejudice or hateful but merely indifferent that there is a reasonable sounding excuse to go along with the status quo. If the indifferent are willing to tell gays that they aren't worthy of consideration over this nonsensical argument, do you really think the real bigots are going to be thwarted by using another term?

 

[StrikeS2k]

He has explained it several times. You don't have to agree with the distinction, but he was pretty clear IMO.

He can't NOT be labeling the opposition as bigots and at the same time be saying bigotry won. So, if he explained it as you say he has then he is generalizing and name calling as I said.

 

[adonis]

The battle over the word is just a means to sucker people who aren't really bigoted or prejudice or hateful but merely indifferent that there is a reasonable sounding excuse to go along with the status quo. If the indifferent are willing to tell gays that they aren't worthy of consideration over this nonsensical argument, do you really think the real bigots are going to be thwarted by using another term?

I'm not saying the solution alone lies in using another term, but I think shifting the battleground would make the fight a little easier.Moving rights for "married people" to something that will be called a civil union, perhaps coupled with a civil rights judgment, might do it. I dunno.I see your point though...but I do think another battleground is a better way to fight it, even if it's just only in name.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

He has explained it several times. You don't have to agree with the distinction, but he was pretty clear IMO.

He can't NOT be labeling the opposition as bigots and at the same time be saying bigotry won. So, if he explained it as you say he has then he is generalizing and name calling as I said.

Sure he can. Bigotry and/or hate and/or prejudice don't need to be the majority to win as long as their arguments win over the indifferent. In this case the bigots were able to convince enough of the indifferent that there was no real difference between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage so there was no need to allow "activist judges" to change the "status quo".

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

Oops, Prop8

In about 3 months it will be:Oops, 9th Circuit

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The battle over the word is just a means to sucker people who aren't really bigoted or prejudice or hateful but merely indifferent that there is a reasonable sounding excuse to go along with the status quo. If the indifferent are willing to tell gays that they aren't worthy of consideration over this nonsensical argument, do you really think the real bigots are going to be thwarted by using another term?

I'm not saying the solution alone lies in using another term, but I think shifting the battleground would make the fight a little easier.Moving rights for "married people" to something that will be called a civil union, perhaps coupled with a civil rights judgment, might do it. I dunno.I see your point though...but I do think another battleground is a better way to fight it, even if it's just only in name.

The problem is that groups such as HRC are not battling just for the word. They are taking compromise when they can achieve that, such as the nasty fight a few years ago for a "domestic partnership registry" in Maryland in order to allow unmarried individual designation someone that would be allowed to make medical decisions on their behalf. The fight was all about the idea of creating a new term that was legally equivalent to marriage in some small way. In 2004 all but one of the state amendments that redefined marriage specifically stated that Civil Unions could not be treated as Marriage. And since at least 2004 I have routinely asked my legislatures at all levels of government to call the bluff of those that think this is about marriage, although in most cases not in so many words. When bueno and Political Spock have made these arguments in the past I have compared my results to theirs as far as responses. There are none. This argument that if only the gays step back and fight for civil unions that compromise could be achieved is just a fraud. It sounds good and allows honest, decent people that really want to treat everyone with the same dignity and respect to have a path to support the civil rights they believe in while still using them as agents to thwart any progress. All the while blaming the gays and their supporters for their fate.

 

[The Z Machine]

Today is a wonderful day for the US, and a sad, sad day for California.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.Which raises an interesting question. I had no clue that the California constitution could be amended by a simple majority of voters. That seems insane to me. It makes it so easy for the majority to exploit a minority. And the state Equal Protection Clause can't do anything about it because a constitutional provision can't be deemed unconstitutional because of an earlier-enacted constitutional provision. So by a simple majority vote, Californians could decide to have the state discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc., and it would be perfectly legal under the state constitution? That seems a bit off to me. The whole point of putting an Equal Protection Clause into a constitution, IMO, is to protect against a majority exploiting a minority. The California constitution apparently has no such protection.Unless I'm totally misunderstanding something, which is fairly likely since I haven't looked into it at all. Post first, research later . . . that's my motto.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

Today is a wonderful day for the US, and a sad, sad day for California.

This isn't over. Our courts here are nutty, nutty I say.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Today is a wonderful day for the US, and a sad, sad day for California.

A friend of mine put it perfectly - I am so very, very proud of my country and so very, very disappointed in my adopted state. (we're both transplants from the eastern seaboard)

 

[adonis]

The battle over the word is just a means to sucker people who aren't really bigoted or prejudice or hateful but merely indifferent that there is a reasonable sounding excuse to go along with the status quo. If the indifferent are willing to tell gays that they aren't worthy of consideration over this nonsensical argument, do you really think the real bigots are going to be thwarted by using another term?

I'm not saying the solution alone lies in using another term, but I think shifting the battleground would make the fight a little easier.Moving rights for "married people" to something that will be called a civil union, perhaps coupled with a civil rights judgment, might do it. I dunno.I see your point though...but I do think another battleground is a better way to fight it, even if it's just only in name.

The problem is that groups such as HRC are not battling just for the word. They are taking compromise when they can achieve that, such as the nasty fight a few years ago for a "domestic partnership registry" in Maryland in order to allow unmarried individual designation someone that would be allowed to make medical decisions on their behalf. The fight was all about the idea of creating a new term that was legally equivalent to marriage in some small way. In 2004 all but one of the state amendments that redefined marriage specifically stated that Civil Unions could not be treated as Marriage. And since at least 2004 I have routinely asked my legislatures at all levels of government to call the bluff of those that think this is about marriage, although in most cases not in so many words. When bueno and Political Spock have made these arguments in the past I have compared my results to theirs as far as responses. There are none. This argument that if only the gays step back and fight for civil unions that compromise could be achieved is just a fraud. It sounds good and allows honest, decent people that really want to treat everyone with the same dignity and respect to have a path to support the civil rights they believe in while still using them as agents to thwart any progress. All the while blaming the gays and their supporters for their fate.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should take away "marriage" entirely, and ONLY have civil unions. I'm not sure if that's possible though.

 

[adonis]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

It had everything to do with peoples vote on Prop 8 though. That was my point.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

It had everything to do with peoples vote on Prop 8 though. That was my point.

If that's why people were voting yes on Prop 8, they were being stupid. That may have been Ray's point.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

It had everything to do with peoples vote on Prop 8 though. That was my point.

If that's why people were voting yes on Prop 8, they were being stupid. That may have been Ray's point.

I didn't really have a point, other than LOOK AT ME, I'M MARRIED

 

[adonis]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

It had everything to do with peoples vote on Prop 8 though. That was my point.

If that's why people were voting yes on Prop 8, they were being stupid. That may have been Ray's point.

I didn't really have a point, other than LOOK AT ME, I'M MARRIED

Don't forget "godless" too . Just don't piss off Mrs. Dole.

 

[B-Deep]

I want to clarify something, because Strike is so eager to accuse me of name-calling.Many people who don't believe in gay marriage, perhaps a majority, do so because their religious or moral values have taught them that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My own father in law believes this, as do many people that I respect. These people are not bigots, and they do not deserve to be called bigots or intolerant, though I sharply disagree with them on this issue.However, their voice in this matter does contribute to an atmosphere of bigotry against homosexuals. That was not the intention of well-meaning individuals who voted for Prop 8, but it is the result nonetheless, IMO. This is why I said that bigotry ruled the day, and why I suggested that these sort of decisions ought to be out of the hands of the public to decide. I take strong exception to the idea that I regard those who disagree with me in this matter or any other matter I have discussed here as bigots, racists, idiots, etc. I do not engage in name-calling and have little tolerance for those who do.

you broke your oath, your words are now meaningless to meOATH BREAKER!!!!

mea culpa. I'm really embarrassed about that. And as it turns out, I couldn't even bring myself to vote for Barr.In this instance, you're perfectly correct to think the worst of me.

ehi am just being a richard

 

[GDogg]

I am trying to look at the bright side of things. Four years ago, a similar proposition passed 75-25%. This one will pass 52-48. We are moving in the right direction.Still, though, I am very depressed this morning. Bigotry is the victor here. fear and dislike of homosexuality rules the day. Nobody will be able to convince me differently. All of the ads focused on the possibility that our children might be "exposed" to gay marriage. It is so revolting. I am really angry about this.

Yup. I'm pretty embarrassed of this state right now.The sad thing is that I know of two people who voted "yes" on this issue and they did it based off ridiculous reasons ("I don't want the government to force the Catholic Church to marry anyone, regardless of whether they are gay or not" and "I don't want my children to be taught gay marriage").

 

[NoFBinLA]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

It had everything to do with peoples vote on Prop 8 though. That was my point.

If that's why people were voting yes on Prop 8, they were being stupid. That may have been Ray's point.

Unfortunately every person I saw on the news last night who voted Yes on 8 said somethign like 'I had to do it for my morals and my kids....'So I think it's exactly how folks decided to vote. It's about religion - it always has been. It's going to be a flashpoint for a long time.

 

[nxmehta]

One day in the not so distant future, the people who voted yes on Proposition 8 will be looked upon as the scum of the past. Much like how our generation views the people who opposed the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, these people will be remembered as nothing but intolerant bigots.

It's like how we view many elderly people now who are racist. Everyone knows someone's crazy grandparent who says racist @!$@.

For those who voted yes, remember this- your children and grandchildren will be the ones having to live with your disgraceful decision.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.Which raises an interesting question. I had no clue that the California constitution could be amended by a simple majority of voters. That seems insane to me. It makes it so easy for the majority to exploit a minority. And the state Equal Protection Clause can't do anything about it because a constitutional provision can't be deemed unconstitutional because of an earlier-enacted constitutional provision. So by a simple majority vote, Californians could decide to have the state discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc., and it would be perfectly legal under the state constitution? That seems a bit off to me. The whole point of putting an Equal Protection Clause into a constitution, IMO, is to protect against a majority exploiting a minority. The California constitution apparently has no such protection.Unless I'm totally misunderstanding something, which is fairly likely since I haven't looked into it at all. Post first, research later . . . that's my motto.

Pretty sure the federal laws already protect against discrimination against race, sex and religion. So no, CA couldn't pass a state Constitutional amendment allowing those things because the federal law would still trump it.

 

[T Bell]

One day in the not so distant future, the people who voted yes on Proposition 8 will be looked upon as the scum of the past. Much like how our generation views the people who opposed the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, these people will be remembered as nothing but intolerant bigots.It's like how we view many elderly people now who are racist. Everyone knows someone's crazy grandparent who says racist @!$@.For those who voted yes, remember this- your children and grandchildren will be the ones having to live with your disgraceful decision.

Will you be there to remind us of this? I sure hope so. I want to share that moment with you.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.Which raises an interesting question. I had no clue that the California constitution could be amended by a simple majority of voters. That seems insane to me. It makes it so easy for the majority to exploit a minority. And the state Equal Protection Clause can't do anything about it because a constitutional provision can't be deemed unconstitutional because of an earlier-enacted constitutional provision. So by a simple majority vote, Californians could decide to have the state discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc., and it would be perfectly legal under the state constitution? That seems a bit off to me. The whole point of putting an Equal Protection Clause into a constitution, IMO, is to protect against a majority exploiting a minority. The California constitution apparently has no such protection.Unless I'm totally misunderstanding something, which is fairly likely since I haven't looked into it at all. Post first, research later . . . that's my motto.

Pretty sure the federal laws already protect against discrimination against race, sex and religion. So no, CA couldn't pass a state Constitutional amendment allowing those things because the federal law would still trump it.

I'm talking about state laws. If I'm drafting a state constitution, I'm not going to rely on the federal constitution to bail me out of stuff like that. Especially since, when California became a state, the federal Bill of Rights didn't yet apply to state laws.

 

[GDogg]

I am trying to look at the bright side of things. Four years ago, a similar proposition passed 75-25%. This one will pass 52-48. We are moving in the right direction.

Still, though, I am very depressed this morning. Bigotry is the victor here. fear and dislike of homosexuality rules the day. Nobody will be able to convince me differently. All of the ads focused on the possibility that our children might be "exposed" to gay marriage. It is so revolting. I am really angry about this.

/minirantTim,

I just want to point out that you repeatedly say in your own defense that you never get personal or call people names. Yet, anyone who doesn't agree with you on certain issues is a bigot or a racist. Let me tell you something, Mr. high and mighty, you don't know what other people's motivations are for their stances on certain issues. Unless you have PROOF that an individual is truly a bigot you shouldn't be making those types of comments and you certainly shoudln't generalize that to ANYONE who disagrees with your stance on an issue. It's one of the reasons I don't respond to your posts. You really need to reevaluate yourself and quit judging others.

/end minirant

No, you misundertand me. Perhaps deliberately, I don't know. I have said several times that many people opposed to gay marriage have reasons and intentions that have nothing to do with bigotry, and I would never accuse an individual of bigotry if I did not know their reasons. That being said, I believe that the victory of Proposition 8 is a victory for bigotry and intolerance. There is a difference between the two concepts. You yourself may not be a bigot, but you are contributing to the maintenance of bigotry. I have never once said or implied that anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot or a racist, and I challenge you to contradict this.

So what you're saying is that blacks and Latinos are bigotted?

According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49. The polls have blacks at 10 percent of the electorate for this issue, with Latinos at 19 percent and whites at 63 percent. (Asians, at six percent, opposed the proposition 53-47.)

I can't speak for all, but I will say that in many of the African-American and Latino neighborhoods and households I know of, being gay is simply not acceptable. So, yeah, in those areas, they are bigotted.

 

[GDogg]

I want to clarify something, because Strike is so eager to accuse me of name-calling.

Many people who don't believe in gay marriage, perhaps a majority, do so because their religious or moral values have taught them that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My own father in law believes this, as do many people that I respect. These people are not bigots, and they do not deserve to be called bigots or intolerant, though I sharply disagree with them on this issue.

However, their voice in this matter does contribute to an atmosphere of bigotry against homosexuals. That was not the intention of well-meaning individuals who voted for Prop 8, but it is the result nonetheless, IMO. This is why I said that bigotry ruled the day, and why I suggested that these sort of decisions ought to be out of the hands of the public to decide.

I take strong exception to the idea that I regard those who disagree with me in this matter or any other matter I have discussed here as bigots, racists, idiots, etc. I do not engage in name-calling and have little tolerance for those who do.

Why don't they? If your church and "moral values" (I'm not sure exactly how your values could teach you anything) taught you racist ideals that you've now accepted, you don't think you should be called a racist?

 

[nxmehta]

I want to clarify something, because Strike is so eager to accuse me of name-calling.

Many people who don't believe in gay marriage, perhaps a majority, do so because their religious or moral values have taught them that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My own father in law believes this, as do many people that I respect. These people are not bigots, and they do not deserve to be called bigots or intolerant, though I sharply disagree with them on this issue.

However, their voice in this matter does contribute to an atmosphere of bigotry against homosexuals. That was not the intention of well-meaning individuals who voted for Prop 8, but it is the result nonetheless, IMO. This is why I said that bigotry ruled the day, and why I suggested that these sort of decisions ought to be out of the hands of the public to decide.

I take strong exception to the idea that I regard those who disagree with me in this matter or any other matter I have discussed here as bigots, racists, idiots, etc. I do not engage in name-calling and have little tolerance for those who do.

Why don't they? If your church and "moral values" (I'm not sure exactly how your values could teach you anything) taught you racist ideals that you've now accepted, you don't think you should be called a racist?

Seriously. Just because you know these people, and because they "mean well", does not excuse them from being called a bigot.Everyone is SO AFRAID of getting that label, but the truth is that many people are deserving. My parents have some very bigoted beliefs, but I still believe that they are wonderful people who mean well. These things are not mutually exclusive, no matter how much people wish they were. You can still respect someone who is a bigot.

 

[TitusIII]

It is what it is, history will not look kindly on the supporters of this proposition...of this I'm sure

 

[nxmehta]

It is what it is, history will not look kindly on the supporters of this proposition...of this I'm sure

This is the one truth that keeps me going here in CA. It's only a matter of time before we look back on these people.

 

[OC Zed]

Pretty much everyone I know voted "no"

I'm happy Obama won, but it will be bittersweet if this pile of crap passes. California voters never cease to amaze me in their stupidity when it comes to voting on propositions.

Although I ultimately decided to vote "No" on Prop. 8, I completely understand the enormous mobilization in favor of Prop. 8. Liberals, particularly in California, consistently underestimate how pissed off people become when judges create new laws and rights outside of the purview of a democratic process.

They did not "create" new laws. They viewed the current laws as being unconstitutional. Now the morons in this state are going to make it constitutional. Why we even get to vote on what is or isn't constitutional is beyond me.

So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008 doesn't strike you as intriguing in the very least? How could such an idea have been "constitutional" all of this time and we did not know it?

Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional.

Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.

I know the history of this very well... if you want me to be a #### about this, I wrote my law school thesis on the topic of the advancement of gay marriage domestically and internationally. Oh, and in case you did not read my initial post in this thread (please look above), I clearly stated that I voted "No" on Prop. 8.

With all of that being said, no one in here can tell me with a straight face that a state court prior to 2000 would have ruled that gay marriage was a constitutionally protected right. The fact that it suddenly is simply stunning.

You know the history very well, but you were factually wrong by three years on this statement "So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008." Gotcha. You also fail to recognize that if gay marriage was not legal, Prop 22, recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman in 2000, would have been completely unnecessary.Sad that someone can claim to get through law school who doesn't understand the appellate system. And what law school was that that required a thesis?

Oh, I forgot to answer this... I graduated from NYU Law. Is that law school prestigious and liberal enough for you?

Figured it wasn't California, since you don't understand the history of California law or the way the appellate system works. Stanford's the only California law school I know of that does a thesis, but you didn't seem to be a big enough ##### to have graduated from there--besides, Stanford alums mention they're from Stanford every opportunity they get. Being from NY would explain why you think a Supreme Court decision is the first time a state court rules on something.

Thanks for lecturing on me on how the court system works. I haven't picked that up at all through all my years of schooling and practicing law. Sorry that I didn't give a hell of a lot of credence to lower court rulings that came completely out of the blue.

 

[whoknew]

Pretty much everyone I know voted "no"I'm happy Obama won, but it will be bittersweet if this pile of crap passes. California voters never cease to amaze me in their stupidity when it comes to voting on propositions.

Although I ultimately decided to vote "No" on Prop. 8, I completely understand the enormous mobilization in favor of Prop. 8. Liberals, particularly in California, consistently underestimate how pissed off people become when judges create new laws and rights outside of the purview of a democratic process.

They did not "create" new laws. They viewed the current laws as being unconstitutional. Now the morons in this state are going to make it constitutional. Why we even get to vote on what is or isn't constitutional is beyond me.

Really? You don't think there should be an amendment process?

 

[Chaka]

Not bigots; my eye.

There is not a single well reasoned argument in favor of Prop 8.

 

[Chaka]

Today is a wonderful day for the US, and a sad, sad day for California.

A friend of mine put it perfectly - I am so very, very proud of my country and so very, very disappointed in my adopted state. (we're both transplants from the eastern seaboard)

I'm sorry but you're going to have to leave. California does not recognize mixed state adoptions.

 

[Ripley]

Marriage is a covenant with God.

Mine isn't.

I'd say that the majority, vast majority, of Americans recognize that definition of marriage, which is a big part of the hangup.

X

 

[17seconds]

I saw a lot of Yes on 8 people on the streets in the last couple of weeks.

They were holding signs saying "Yes on 8!! Freedom of Speech!"

Can someone here explain why putting "A marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman" in the CA constitution is helping freedom of speech?

 

[Chaka]

I saw a lot of Yes on 8 people on the streets in the last couple of weeks.They were holding signs saying "Yes on 8!! Freedom of Speech!"Can someone here explain why putting "A marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman" in the CA constitution is helping freedom of speech?

It's easy. The people behind all the campaign slogans and catch phrases are liars.