Quote :

"if money is the only reason 8 passed"

Well, money certainly isn't the only reason it passed. I imagine some of it had to do with ill-spirited, uneducated, backwater bigots with nothing better to do than opine on how others should spend their lives.

Thanks for helping to point that out. It's worth noting, though, that the Mormon church -- given its ideology and history -- makes perfect bedfellows with such people.

Granted one might think that it's particularly undemocratic for a single source of funding to flow so freely towards a single issue referendum while the opposition comes from grass roots. Or for a simple majority vote to change a constitutionally guaranteed right. But that would be "whining."

11/8/2008 1:49:04 AM

Quote :

"Well, money certainly isn't the only reason it passed. I imagine some of it had to do with ill-spirited, uneducated, backwater bigots with nothing better to do than opine on how others should spend their lives. Thanks for helping to point that out. It's worth noting, though, that the Mormon church -- given its ideology and history -- makes perfect bedfellows with such people. Granted one might think that it's particularly undemocratic for a single source of funding to flow so freely towards a single issue referendum while the opposition comes from grass roots. Or for a simple majority vote to change a constitutionally guaranteed right. But that would be "whining."

Yeah, gay marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed right! Oh wait, no it isn't. Marriage isn't even a constitutional right. How dare the people of California, in one of the largest voter turnouts ever, not want to recognize gay marriage. They must be uneducated bigots! Or maybe, just maybe, they don't want their state to recognize marriage between the same sex because a majority of people there recognize the difference between male and female.

Honestly, I could care less. But this was about as democratic as you get. One person, one vote. And the people, not politicians, expressed their will.

11/8/2008 2:21:22 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/08/same.sex.protests/index.html

Quote :

"Gay marriage supporters take to California streets # Story Highlights # Protests continue over recent passage of same-sex marriage ban in California # Measure overturns May ruling by California Supreme Court allowing gay marriages # Legal status of same-sex weddings that occurred before ban remains unclear"

11/8/2008 5:32:01 AM

Quote :

"But this was about as democratic as you get. One person, one vote. And the people, not politicians, expressed their will."

I've been fairly tolerant and respectful of homophobia, but this vote made me see the light.

This isn't about the people's will. This is about basic rights that should be guaranteed to everybody.

We've come so far. How can we even be holding votes on the matter? Isn't it obvious?

11/8/2008 6:51:17 AM

11/8/2008 2:10:34 PM

i know, how dare we let states decide on such matters for themselves? How dare we *gasp* follow the Constitution.

11/8/2008 2:14:25 PM

Quote :

" I've been fairly tolerant and respectful of homophobia, but this vote made me see the light. This isn't about the people's will. This is about basic rights that should be guaranteed to everybody. We've come so far. How can we even be holding votes on the matter? Isn't it obvious?"

You don't get it. It isn't homophobia, people aren't afraid of homosexuality, they just don't approve of it. And the majority of people in society are saying, no we don't want this. Homosexuals are free to do whatever they want to do, but society has decided they want marriage to be between a man and a woman. Marriage is most definitely not a basic right. And if one of the most "liberal" states in the country votes against it, well, maybe that should tell people something.

Now, if you want to end government recognition of marriage altogether and any benefits married couples have, that's fine by me. But don't expect people to not only go against thousands of years of tradition, but also basic biology.

11/8/2008 2:29:57 PM

Quote :

"It isn't homophobia, people aren't afraid of homosexuality, they just don't approve of it."

Quote :

"The English suffixes -phobia, -phobic, -phobe (of Greek origin: f?ß??/f?ß?a ) occur in technical usage in psychiatry to construct words that describe irrational, disabling fear as a mental disorder (e.g., agoraphobia), in chemistry to describe chemical aversions (e.g., hydrophobic), in biology to describe organisms that dislike certain conditions (e.g., acidophobia), and in medicine to describe hypersensitivity to a stimulus, usually sensory (e.g., photophobia). In common usage they also form words that describe dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophobia

Quote :

"And if one of the most "liberal" states in the country votes against it, well, maybe that should tell people something. "

The Yes on 8 campaign reportedly spread a lot of lies that the No on 8 campaign failed to challenge. For instance, they said churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages, a blatantly false and ridiculous (have you ever heard of church being forced to perform a Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist wedding?). The only thing it tells people is that there's more work to be done and they need to be more sophisticated with getting the message out.

11/8/2008 2:44:09 PM

Quote :

"The Yes on 8 campaign reportedly spread a lot of lies"

Yeah the lies about being forced to perform weddings &/or be sued &/or lose their tax exempt status, lies through implying Obama endorsed prop 8, and lies about forcing teachers to teach kindergartners about marriage equality. I'm not sure exactly how large of a role it played, but there was a very well funded misinformation campaign.

11/8/2008 4:28:02 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, gay marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed right! Oh wait, no it isn't. Marriage isn't even a constitutional right. How dare the people of California, in one of the largest voter turnouts ever, not want to recognize gay marriage."

Equal protection under the law is a constitutionally guaranteed right. See: the 14th amendment.

(more believers in Jim Crow and Separate But Equal coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches, I see)

Quote :

"But this was about as democratic as you get. One person, one vote. And the people, not politicians, expressed their will."

Yes, with the minor problem that we don't live in a direct democracy, we live in a very carefully arranged republic where people's individual rights cannot typically be voted away in a simple majority.

California's system is very flawed; changing the state constitution should require a super majority and legislative review at least. And furthermore under no circumstances does the state constitution trump the federal 14th amendment.

Quote :

"How dare we *gasp* follow the Constitution."

Quote :

"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."

(14th amendment)

How about you *gasp* read the Constitution?

Quote :

"Marriage is most definitely not a basic right."

Equal protection under the law is a basic right. I sound like a broken record. You don't realize how sophistic and stupid this argument truly is -- if this were the 60s you'd be arguing that drinking from the same water fountains and riding in the front of the bus aren't basic rights.

And don't go on with the Losertarian "let's abolish all marriage" crap. Marriage as an institution is perfectly fine so long as it's administered fairly. It's not that hard to do.

11/8/2008 4:39:28 PM

Quote :

"But this was about as democratic as you get. One person, one vote. And the people, not politicians, expressed their will."

Quote :

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801"

11/8/2008 5:04:20 PM

Quote :

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "

-Thomas Jefferson

11/8/2008 5:09:29 PM

So are you arguing that individuals are being denied the rights others have? How so? The law recognizes marriage as an institution between a man and a women. A homosexual man has the same right to marry that a heterosexual man does, correct? This is very different that saying you can't marry a woman because you are homosexual, or black or left-handed, and that only a heterosexual man can marry. You may not like that, but there is a clear distinction between the two.

11/8/2008 5:10:22 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27605365/

Quote :

"N.Y. eyes gay marriage but opponents vow fight Obstacle removed by state Senate power shift; protests grow in Calif., Utah ALBANY, New York - Even as voters in California banned same-sex marriage in a tight referendum, Tuesday's election opened the door for the same debate in New York. The pending shift in state Senate control away from Republicans removes one clear obstacle to legalizing gay marriage in New York"

11/8/2008 5:11:09 PM

^^^

Do you know the speech or document that comes from? The sources I say online were uncited.

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2008 5:13:10 PM

Nah I don't have a source other than some webpage. I do recall reading that Jefferson spoke about the need to protect the minority groups from being overpowered by the majority.

11/8/2008 5:21:10 PM

Quote :

"So are you arguing that individuals are being denied the rights others have? How so? The law recognizes marriage as an institution between a man and a women. A homosexual man has the same right to marry that a heterosexual man does, correct? This is very different that saying you can't marry a woman because you are homosexual, or black or left-handed, and that only a heterosexual man can marry. You may not like that, but there is a clear distinction between the two."

This argument is old, has been addressed before, and you should realize just how logically flawed it is. There is an OBVIOUS inequality in the statement that heterosexual and homosexual men both have a right to marry women.

11/8/2008 5:21:19 PM

If only the supreme court didn't strike down the notion of separate but equal, the pro-prop-8ers could have their way.

11/8/2008 5:35:13 PM

Quote :

" This argument is old, has been addressed before, and you should realize just how logically flawed it is. There is an OBVIOUS inequality in the statement that heterosexual and homosexual men both have a right to marry women."

Again, change the law then, except you can't because the vast majority of people don't want it changed. Tyranny of the majority maybe, but the opposite would be tyranny of the minority. Society has a right to establish what it deems normal and acceptable and what it doesn't, for whatever reason. This isn't about oppression or any basic human right. The courts, in the majority of cases, have sided against gay marriage (of course the courts aren't against it themselves) so say whatever you like.

11/8/2008 6:46:16 PM

Quote :

" Tyranny of the majority maybe, but the opposite would be tyranny of the minority."

Doing the right thing is never tyranny.

11/8/2008 6:50:52 PM

Quote :

"Again, change the law then, except you can't because the vast majority of people don't want it changed."

It's fine how it is, but unfortunately most people apparently DO want it changed.

See other people's posts regarding the Constitution/Jefferson, and the 14th Amendment:

Quote :

"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."

You were arguing that Prop 8 wasn't unconstitutional because it didn't deprive anyone of rights. I told you that simply isn't true, it does deny rights, and then you tell me to change the law, which ALREADY SUPPORTS MY POSITION. Congratulations, your logic is absurd.

Quote :

"Tyranny of the majority maybe, but the opposite would be tyranny of the minority."

This makes no sense. Not passing a gay marriage ban is by no conceivable definition tyranny. Not passing this bill doesn't restrict or oppress anyone. Just because you can type something that sounds good does not make it a true statement.

Quote :

"Doing the right thing is never tyranny."

This kind of thinking is a bit dangerous, and not entirely true. The "right thing" is vastly open to interpretation. Some people think that marijuana being illegal is the "right thing", when it is obviously restricting someone's freedom to do what they please with their own body. Many victimless crimes are often considered the "right thing" even though they are borderline (if not outright) oppression. Let's say some health nuts decided that banning greasy french fries is the "right thing" to do because it keeps people healthy, though it is an obvious restriction of personal freedom. Is it "right"? Fuck no, I say, but others might think differently.

In the case of Prop 8... when something is questionably "right", erring on the side of freedom/choice/liberty cannot be tyranny.

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 7:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2008 7:07:49 PM

Quote :

"This isn't about oppression or any basic human right. The courts, in the majority of cases, have sided against gay marriage (of course the courts aren't against it themselves) so say whatever you like."

Equal protection under the law is a basic human right. Please see: South Africa for a good example of just what happens when a government systematically ignores that right by fiat.

The courts are not inerrant. Please see: Plessy v Ferguson for an example of the supreme errancy of the judiciary.

It is about oppression. Rights are established to protect the minority from the mob rule. They are inherently undemocratic. Taking away rights by simple majority rule is fundamentally the opposite of the founding principles of our republic. Please see: the process for amending the federal constitution and, while you're at it, do ask yourself why it's not just done via nationwide popular vote.

11/8/2008 8:02:17 PM

Everyone does have equal protection under the law.


Every human is allowed to marry a willing, non-related partner of the opposite sex.

11/8/2008 8:22:22 PM

^

Sure, and black people under Jim Crow could vote just as soon as they learned to read or paid that poll tax.

11/8/2008 8:31:08 PM

Quote :

"California's system is very flawed; changing the state constitution should require a super majority and legislative review at least."

this actually surprised me very much - i looked at the Prop 8 returns on tuesday night and it surprised me that they won a majority, but then I thought to myself "oh well, surely it will take 60% or 2/3's vote to amend the State Constitution"

I mean, to amend the US Constitution it takes 2/3's of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the States to approve - measures to ensure that only the most vital amendments are approved. But in CA it takes 50%+1? that's fucked up.

11/8/2008 9:43:53 PM

Quote :

"I had two lesbian friends who had done all sorts of things to codify their partnership, reciprocal powers of attorney, what you call the medical decision making thing and some others. They spend a fair amount of money having a lawyer having all this drawn up. Then when one of them became extremely ill her estranged family flew in from the east coast to take her home, challenged the partnership documents in court and the judge, typical red necked evangelical type, tossed out the partnership papers and off the one went to Virginia, to die, surrounded by family who had disowned her and separated from her love by 1000 miles. So, ya, I see people who oppose gay rights and marriage as nothing more than run of the mill bigots. I dont give a fuck what your old book tells you. "

http://www.maclife.com/forums/post/1610760#p1610760

11/8/2008 9:49:01 PM

^lol "Maclife"... it's a computer, you wingjobs, not a social movement.

Anyway, as for what you actually posted, it's sad that she died but that fact has little to do with gay rights. The fact that her family members are (apparently) bigoted sadists doesn't really offer any insight into the social issues facing our nation today.

What is relevant is that they had to spend what sounds like a lot of money to even get close to being eligible to marry (or form a union, or whatever terminology) says a lot about the unfairness of the issue, as does the ability of a judge to insert his own belief system so easily into a ruling.

11/8/2008 10:13:29 PM

Quote :

"Anyway, as for what you actually posted, it's sad that she died but that fact has little to do with gay rights. The fact that her family members are (apparently) bigoted sadists doesn't really offer any insight into the social issues facing our nation today. "

Uhh...

The fact the court overturned what would have amounted to a marriage otherwise is the main point. In a normal situation, if they were legally married, this wouldn't have been allowed to happen.

11/8/2008 10:15:53 PM

I think we should start a list. I mean, it looks like some folks like to argue shit about how this is what the people want, the Constitution, states' rights, etc...without revealing whether or not they're bigots.

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK


Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:


And none of this "well, I'm for it, but I think states should get to decide." If you're for it, say it loud and proud, regardless of your opinion about states' rights.

11/8/2008 10:17:29 PM

Quote :

"For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):"

11/8/2008 10:20:08 PM

What if you're against gay rights, but don't see how or why the gov. could or should stop it by law?

11/8/2008 10:20:41 PM

^Kinda like the example of the hypothetical guy who is for them. If you're against them, check the against them box.

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK
agentlion


Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:

11/8/2008 10:24:31 PM

Quote :

"The fact the court overturned what would have amounted to a marriage otherwise is the main point. In a normal situation, if they were legally married, this wouldn't have been allowed to happen."

Did you even read my next sentence?

v Because I was a bit annoyed at the person posting it for basing their opinion largely around factors that are almost completely irrelevant to the discussion. Glaring errors in thinking like that annoy me.

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 10:30 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2008 10:27:09 PM

^ no, but your next sentence nullified your previous one, so I don't see why you felt the need to throw the first one in.

11/8/2008 10:27:42 PM

Quote :

"And none of this "well, I'm for it, but I think states should get to decide." If you're for it, say it loud and proud, regardless of your opinion about states' rights."

Black-and-white thinking like this is what allows our broken two-party system to stay in power. I refuse to deny the fact that grey areas and middle ground exist within all issues.

That said, I see no reason why gay people should not be allowed to have a union under the law, but I wouldn't say I'm adamantly for them. Kind of like how I see no reason why someone should be forced to wear a seatbelt if they don't want to, even though I wouldn't call myself anti-seatbelt.

I'm not against it, so I guess you might as well chalk me up as "For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law)" on the good ol' Backwards-thinking and Harmful-to-society Chart of Polarization.

11/8/2008 10:43:08 PM

<- For States rights


If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, fine
If California doesn't want gay mariage, fine
If some other state wants to give them all the privileges of marriage, but call it a civil union, fine.

11/8/2008 10:44:21 PM

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK
agentlion
tromboner950


Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 11:11 PM. Reason : Better.]

11/8/2008 11:10:29 PM

<-- For Gay Marriage. Not Civil Union. Not Domestic Partnership. Marriage.

Separate is Inherently Unequal.

11/8/2008 11:22:03 PM

Isn't states rights what the racists used as code for "I hate black people" back in the day?


if new york wants to let blacks vote, let em.
if georgia doesn't, let em.
if mississippi only wants to partially count their votes, let em.

11/8/2008 11:28:55 PM

^I agree. And I think you should sign up to make your point.

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK
agentlion
tromboner950
kwsmith2


Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:


To be clear, I used both terms, "civil unions/gay marriage," to cover everything. No semantic games are being played. If the law opts to use the term "civil union" to describe the joining of all couples, then that's the word we're settled on. If they pick "marriage," then we're going with that for all couples. No room for distinction by using two different words.

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 11:39 PM. Reason : sss]

11/8/2008 11:39:01 PM

Quote :

"For Gay Marriage. Not Civil Union. Not Domestic Partnership. Marriage. Separate is Inherently Unequal."

I tend to dislike this line of thinking. Marriage nowadays has a religious connotation (yes, I know it may or may not be historically religious in its roots, but in modern society, the word has developed religious connotations)... I'd prefer to see all legal unions, man/woman or man/man or woman/woman, be referred to as "civil unions" or something of that nature, with the word "marriage" used to specify a union with regards to religion or simply to the ceremonial aspects of a partnership (something entirely unregulated and unaffected by state/federal law). This would be both equal to all parties and would clearly differentiate a legal partnership from a religious one.

This might need clarification so it doesn't seem like I'm trying to elevate religious people over non-religious ones. I'm saying that "marriage" is a term that should be completely unbound and unrelated by law, while "civil union" would be the term referenced by any legal document or court, and both homosexual and heterosexual couples should be able to have one, the other, both, or neither. We should make every effort to differentiate the ceremonial and spiritual aspects of life from the legal aspects. Two people of any orientation choose to kiss eachother under a flower-adorned awning while their friends and family watch? Cool, they can call themselves married, but they wouldn't have a civil union until someone fills out the paperwork. Similarly, they could fill out the paperwork for a civil union, and then call themselves whatever the fuck they want to depending upon their views of the ceremonial aspects of marriage.


Yes, I'm playing semantics, but believe it or not this bullshit matters IMMENSELY to certain religious people. And besides that, even in secular marriages, I still see the use of "marriage" as a legal term to be borderline on breaking separation of church and state. We simply shouldn't be using such a subjective and ceremony-oriented term in such an official context.

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 11:45 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2008 11:43:13 PM

Quote :

"Isn't states rights what the racists used as code for "I hate black people" back in the day?"

Voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

11/9/2008 12:25:41 AM

^^ Agreed.

11/9/2008 1:01:40 AM

Quote :

"Marriage nowadays has a religious connotation (yes, I know it may or may not be historically religious in its roots, but in modern society, the word has developed religious connotations)... I'd prefer to see all legal unions, man/woman or man/man or woman/woman, be referred to as "civil unions" or something of that nature"

I can live with that

11/9/2008 2:18:33 AM

Quote :

"I mean, to amend the US Constitution it takes 2/3's of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the States to approve - measures to ensure that only the most vital amendments are approved. But in CA it takes 50%+1? that's fucked up."

Apparently not?

"The process by which proposition 8 came about is being challenged right now. What they want to do is amend the constitution by simply going out and gathering signatures. And then a vote of 50% +1, does not amend our constitution. What that requires, to amend the state constitution, what's required is a 2/3 vote of the senate, and a 2/3 vote of the assembly, both houses of the legislature, and then it goes to a ballot.
-George Takei

From that full interview he seemed pretty confident prop 8 was going down in the courts not for being right or wrong, or for how it would or wouldn't affect churches or children, or who did or didn't vote for it or why they voted the way they did, but because after the supreme court ruled that the CA state constitution guarantees marriage equality, the correct procedure to amend the constitution has not happened.

He also felt his marriage was safe b/c nothing in prop 8 had retroactive language to affect the marriage he already had.

Also Bridget you can add me to your for marriage equality list

11/9/2008 9:47:07 AM

Quote :

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism"

- Goldwater

11/9/2008 11:59:18 AM

I really don't think they should try to undermine the results of the proposition. The people voted and the good guys lost. Taking it to court would only prove all the "legislating from the bench" accusations correct.

Wait two years, then beat the amendment with an honest and focused campaign.

11/9/2008 1:48:35 PM

^agreed

11/9/2008 1:56:13 PM

^^ I disagree.

The whole point of the judicial branch is to overturn decisions that are unconstitutional. If this falls under that, it's literally the judge's job to look at it and overturn it.

11/9/2008 1:57:14 PM

^^^ I agree with that. Everybody's complaining about the issue being left up to "majority rule" and it not being equal rights for the minority, but what if the result had been the other way? I'm sure all we'd hear about is how anybody that was in favor of this is wasting their time in courts and they're intolerant and stupid, etc.

Whether it should have been left up to a vote like this is debatable, but it was and the gays lost. That's too bad for them but you can't just go to the courts every single time something doesn't go your way.

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 1:59:26 PM