SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage

[BoMac]

Guess I can take down my cyber yard sign now.

By voting "yes" on Proposition 8 the citizens of California were actually saying "no."

No to a radical redefinition of marriage.
No to judicial activism.
And no to the "Proposition hate" bullying of the Angry Left.

Reading things like this make me sad and angry at the same time. You're fooling yourself if you think excluding a whole section of people the same basic rights that the majority have is not being a bigot. It's categorically wrong. And pathetic.

Marriage as an institution would not cease to exist if homosexuals are allowed to marry. It simply would not. I'm speechless when I see people spew this kind of hate.

Let me put it this way: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that heterosexuals were the minority. Would you want to be told whom you can and cannot marry? I don't think you would. So why not put yourselves in other people's shoes and imagine how they feel?

And please show me how two same-sex individuals marrying would negatively affect you, personally, and society in general. Tell me. Teach me. Show me.

 

[BVS]

Guys, give up. You will not get an answer to that question. There is none.

 

[Irvine511]

Guess I can take down my cyber yard sign now.

By voting "yes" on Proposition 8 the citizens of California were actually saying "no."

No to a radical redefinition of marriage.
No to judicial activism.
And no to the "Proposition hate" bullying of the Angry Left.

you sure put those faggots in their place, didn't you?

way to go!

 

[yolland]

Personally I've yet to find one person whose opposition to gay marriage wasn't founded on religious beliefs.

I've known several, and my guess is you have too, if only glancingly, but just didn't realize it. It's just that for nonreligious opponents (qualifier: I wouldn't put nonreligious people who were raised in a religious environment in this category), their 'arguments' are typically limited to raw, wholly non-intellectualized revulsion at what seems different, unnatural, 'gross'. And that kind of 'argument' is generally seen as embarrassingly crude and vulgar by most, so it gets quickly tossed out of the public sphere. When on the other hand someone appears to be speaking humbly, from a position of concern for the stereotypically most vulnerable (i.e. children, and perhaps women), and acting in service of an ideal greater than themselves, that incurs respect. That doesn't mean their thinking is firmly grounded in feeling for the common humanity of others (such as their love for and devotion to their families), as moral thinking always should be.

 

[redkat]

Guess I can take down my cyber yard sign now.

By voting "yes" on Proposition 8 the citizens of California were actually saying "no."

No to a radical redefinition of marriage.
No to judicial activism.
And no to the "Proposition hate" bullying of the Angry Left.

They were saying yes to hate. There is no reason other than hate and fear. If there has ever been a bullying campaign this was it. The ads were false and misleading, the proponents were in your face on a daily basis spreading fear. "what about the children" "free speech" "support our schools" wtf if you weren't paying attention you'd think you were voting for a school bond.

Not one person is positively impacted by this proposition.

 

[diamond]

I don't think that Gay couples who are esposed now would be stripped of those spousal privileges.

I can't see the Straight Gestapo coming in and taking a gay spouse off of a mortgage, or deleting a gay spouse from a will etc.

I'm sure that the State of Calif will come up w a way to resolve Mayor Newsom's high handedness which caused all of this mess.

<>

 

[melon]

I don't think that Gay couples who are esposed now would be stripped of those spousal privliges.

Why not? If gays getting married really are hurting the children, devaluing hetero marriage, and bringing in the downfall of Western Civilization, then why shouldn't they be nullified?

Or is it, as most of us here believe, an arbitary and hate-filled amendment after all?

 

[diamond]

Why not? If gays getting married really are hurting the children, devaluing hetero marriage, and bringing in the downfall of Western Civilization, then why shouldn't they be nullified?

Or is it, as most of us here believe, an arbitary and hate-filled amendment after all?

No, I think a correction will be made on their licenses from 'marriage' to 'union', altho there is one way a gay couple could get around it.

Other than that, everything else should remain the same.

<>

 

[phillyfan26]

No, I think a correction will be made on their licenses from 'marriage' to 'union'.

Everything else should remain the same.

<>

Why? What's the big deal about the word?

 

[anitram]

This was at issue in Canada as well when the bigots spoke up before they were shut down.

Essentially, what would happen to existing marriages? Well, under existing legislation, spouse was defined as somebody of the opposite sex. When the courts ruled this to be unconstitutional, they ordered the province to amend all legislation in order to change the definition of spouse. This is a massive undertaking, as you can imagine, because it literally affects everything from family laws, custody, taxes, wills and trusts, etc.

Now if you pass the amendment, then the newly changed legislation would by definition become unconstitutional. So not only are you stripping the couples of their marriage, but of every other right that was afforded to them as a married couple since by default, the definition of spouse must go back to two members of the opposite sex.

 

[phillyfan26]

Is there any civil union in place now that they can no longer be married?

If not, then all "Yes on 8" voters have taken away tons of rights just because they want the words to be different.

 

[diamond]

Why? What's the big deal about the word?

Enough of a deal that it's meaning couldn't be changed based on the voice of the people.
<>

 

[phillyfan26]

Enough of a deal that it's meaning couldn't be changed based on the voice of the people.
<>

Let's take away their rights because we don't like the wording.

Good plan, Captain <>!

16,000 getting their marriages revoked. Completely out of their control.

And it's people like yourself who supported it who are to blame.

Sleep tight.

 

[diamond]

This was at issue in Canada .

Canada<USA.

<>

 

[diamond]

Good plan, Captain <>!

16,000 getting their marriages revoked. Completely out of their control.



.

They won't be revoked; PM when they do-I will be first to put a stop to it.

<>

 

[financeguy]

I do not like the result, it is disappointing, but the whole thing is just a big blasted distraction, a nice little invented controversy for the sheeple.

It's a nice little controversy for the liberals to beat themselves up over, and the religious conservatives to congratulate themselves on fulfilling the words of the Bible, or whatever.

In practical terms, I am not convinced that it means a heck of a lot.

California is still a relatively gay-friendly, liberal state. California did not suddenly change overnight from being a liberal state to some kind of homophobic, American Taliban headquarters, so let's get real here.

I am not convinced that Arnie is going to order his troops in to confiscate the marriage certificates of all the gay couples that got married, let's get real here for a second.

ALWAYS LOOK WHERE THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO LOOK - in this case, most likely, what they don't want you to look at is California's looming bankruptcy.

 

[anitram]

Canada<USA.

Yeah, it's awful here what with our equality, free healthcare and the fact we haven't gone bankrupt like you guys. Tough living these days.

 

[diamond]

This was at issue in Canada as well when the bigots spoke up before they were shut down.

Essentially, what would happen to existing marriages? Well, under existing legislation, spouse was defined as somebody of the opposite sex. When the courts ruled this to be unconstitutional, they ordered the province to amend all legislation in order to change the definition of spouse. This is a massive undertaking, as you can imagine, because it literally affects everything.......

There is an indespensible amount of money for liberal causes here in the States.

Fear not, the bigots will figure it out.

<>

 

[martha]

Guess I can take down my cyber yard sign now.

By voting "yes" on Proposition 8 the citizens of California were actually saying "no."

No to a radical redefinition of marriage.
No to judicial activism.
And no to the "Proposition hate" bullying of the Angry Left.

And Yes to second-class citizenship for a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

And Yes to actually taking away a right that was in existence.

I don't know how you can clap and face yourself.

I don't know how you sleep knowing that you advocate the removal of rights for your fellow citizens.

I think I'll write you off.

 

[phillyfan26]

I do not like the result, it is disappointing, but the whole thing is just a big blasted distraction, a nice little invented controversy for the sheeple.

It's a nice little controversy for the liberals to beat themselves up over, and the religious conservatives to congratulate themselves on fulfilling the words of the Bible, or whatever.

In practical terms, I am not convinced that it means a heck of a lot.

California is still a relatively gay-friendly, liberal state. California did not suddenly change overnight from being a liberal state to some kind of homophobic, American Taliban headquarters, so let's get real here.

I am not convinced that Arnie is going to order his troops in to confiscate the marriage certificates of all the gay couples that got married, let's get real here for a second.

ALWAYS LOOK WHERE THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO LOOK - in this case, most likely, what they don't want you to look at is California's looming bankruptcy.

What do you think is going to happen? It seems like the certificates being confiscated is exactly what's going to go on here at the moment.

 

[anitram]

There is an indespensible amount of money for liberal causes here in the States.

Fear not, the bigots will figure it out.

<>

I think it's fair to say you seem to have no understanding of the legal system.

 

[phillyfan26]

Ultimately, it's not about the gays for people like INDY and Diamond, based on their statements. Just look at what they're saying.

They just wanted to win over the Left and the liberals. At the expense of civil rights? So be it.

They're clapping for beating the left.

 

[BoMac]

Yeah, it's awful here what with our equality, free healthcare and the fact we haven't gone bankrupt like you guys. Tough living these days.

It is, in fact. I don't know how I get out of bed everyday.

 

[UberBeaver]

I am not convinced that Arnie is going to order his troops in to confiscate the marriage certificates of all the gay couples that got married, let's get real here for a second.

ALWAYS LOOK WHERE THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO LOOK - in this case, most likely, what they don't want you to look at is California's looming bankruptcy.

I think the plan is this:

Hold on to those certificates for a little while -they're rare items so they'll become collectors items. When the price is nice and high sell them on ebay. Use that money to pay off Cali's debt. BAM. Everyone's happy....except the gays that aren't married anymore...but hey - they're all bigots anyway, so no loss there.

 

[martha]

I don't think that Gay couples who are esposed now would be stripped of those spousal privileges.

Why not? Their marriage are no longer legal.

I can't see the Straight Gestapo coming in and taking a gay spouse off of a mortgage, or deleting a gay spouse from a will etc.

Your church is capable of quite a lot. Don't write them off yet.

I'm sure that the State of Calif will come up w a way to resolve Mayor Newsom's high handedness which caused all of this mess.

And if they don't?

 

[diamond]

I think it's fair to say you seem to have no understanding of the legal system.

We're much more advanced than our neighbors in the North.

Aside from a few cute moose ice hockey and jr. arena "football" you have nothing on the US of A.

Nada.

<>

 

[martha]

They won't be revoked; PM when they do-I will be first to put a stop to it.

Nobody's buying your false nobility here.

 

[BAW]

They won't be revoked; PM when they do-I will be first to put a stop to it.

<>

What makes you so sure? This will involve years of legal challenges, but yes, the 16,000 same sex marriages performed in CA since June could be retroactively invalidated.

 

[anitram]

We're much more advanced than our neighbors in the North.

Aside from a few cute moose ice hockey and jr. arena "football" you have nothing on the US of A.

I want to quote this for posterity, not that I think you have an adequate level of shame to be embarrassed.

 

[diamond]

Why not? Their marriage are no longer legal.

Your church is capable of quite a lot. Don't write them off yet.



And if they don't?

I will be first on the scene to right the Right, ok?

At least we're clear on Mayor Newsom.

<>