Latest Headlines on OCRegister.com
[x] Close
- NEWS
- SPORTS
- Kobe hits Knicks with his best shot 14 minutes ago
- O.C. players make an impact in NFL
- Big-play Trojans? Not this season 1 hour & 52 minutes ago
- Hudler, Physioc let go by Fox
- BUSINESS
- O.C.Biz Wrap: Hot cars, cliff hanging homes 1 hour & 52 minutes ago
- Creatively enhanced home listing of the week 1 hour & 10 minutes ago
- Really? Housing regulator defaults on loans 3 hours & 37 minutes ago
- California workers see bad job market
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Pulse poll: Do you favor the legal challenge of Prop. 8?
November 11th, 2008, 11:52 am · 265 Comments · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
Proposition 8, the successful measure to ban gay marriage, won more handily in Orange County than did John McCain. But the two have similar constituencies, as you can see from the current OC Political Pulse poll. In early returns, Republicans tend to oppose the legal challenge of the measure, while Democrats favor it. Conservative Christians are siding with Republicans, while progressive Chrisitians are going with Democrats.
Vote yourself and see where other demographic groups stand at ocregister.com/pulse
Click here for an item on prominent GOP gays coming out in support of the legal challenge of Prop. 8.
ADVERTISEMENT
265 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
DENA BUNIS, Washington bureau chief, 202-628-6381 or dbunis@ocregister.com
CHRIS KNAP, Politics team leader, 714-796-2240 or cknap@ocregister.com
BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento correspondent, 916-449-6046 or bjoseph@ocregister.com
JENNIFER MUIR, County government reporter, 714-796-7813 or jmuir@ocregister.com
MARTIN WISCKOL, Politics reporter, 714-285-2867 or mwisckol@ocregister.com twitter.com/MartinWisckol
Click here for bloggers' biographies
-
-
-
-
-
ADVERTISEMENT
No.
Regarding your today’s OC Register poll regarding California’s Proposition 8:
There is no religious freedom in America when any religious group can impose their dogma on any person that disagrees with that dogma. Separation of church and state, as Constitutionally mandated in America, is a myth.
It is important that all Americans realize that their country is NOT, and never was intended to be, a Christian nation . . . let alone a religious nation.
Whether the above conclusions are supported or not, to believe otherwise is un-American; and, those that are so uninformed, whatever else they may be, they are not American patriots.
The teaching of the Constitution and all its implied freedoms should be, and is not, one of the most important functions of all American public schools.
Religious zealotry by well intentioned persons, that are badly mislead by their anthropic religious leaders, who often speak directly with a god, is the greatest, unnatural threat to well being in the world today. Certainly, no religious organization should be intolerant and mean-spirited toward others that live by the Golden Rule.
Isn’t it amazing how many persons think that their religion is the only true religion; yet the origins of most every religion is from relatively modern ideas from persons that have lived for only a small proportion of anthropic existence.
Paul Fitz-Gibbon:
Every law (including Prop.
must have SECULAR reasons. No one is arguing that with you.
Prop 8
No one is outlawing civil unions. Gays can still live together with full marriage rights. But marriage is for the propitiation of children, not just for birth but also for upbringing. Every gay person, though homosexual, has heterosexual parents. Children need both a mom and a dad, not two moms or two dads. if any gay couple has a child, only one of the gay partners can be a biological parent, the other is a step parent at best. 30 states have already passed traditional marriage laws. That is not just religion, that is the basis for ideal child upbringing. Gays can have their civil unions, but leave marriage to the moms and dads.
Charles R:
That’s not the only reason (since widow and widowers have to raise children too). I want to repeal “domestic partnership” laws too.
Do civil unions give the same beneficiary rights that a spouse receives? like social security, IRA inheritance options? Do they have to pay taxes on their partner’s estate when one dies?
Ideally, I agree. Thanks
Being raised by a widow or widower is still more natural than to be raised by gays. Even as hard as death is to deal with, a child can deal with the death of a parent more naturally than to deal with having two dads or two moms. A child may wonder how to treat the bilogical parent over the gay partner, and also, who is the other bilogical parent? Why isn’t that person around? etc.
I agree.
confused:
I believe on the State level, all rights and privileges of “marriage” are accorded to “domestice partnerships”.
domestic
It is interesting how the far left can pass law after law which increasingly limits our free speech, as the Democrats social engineer us to death in California. We do not go sue crazy and make up attacks about them as “intolerant, bigoted, hateful and discriminatory”. The radical left Democrats can attack organized religion time and again and no one in the media complains
Let the majority of Californians, for a second time, reaffirm that marriage is between one man and one woman, and the media and activists on far left goes crazy. Let’s be clear and accurate. Prop. 8 does not deal with bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. It correctly was passed, with over 500,000 more votes than the opposition, because most Californians are not delusional like the far left activists and media that live in the twight zone. Civilizations, learned the hard way over thousands of years, that raising a family through marriage as one man and one woman was less costly emothionally, mentally, physically and financially than the continuous problem of sexual deviancy. Duh!
no!
the people HAVE spoken!
thats democracy in action.
that is love of country.
The California State Supreme Court is morally compromised and has ignored the will of the people. It probably will do so again and WHAT are we going to do about it? It is time to clean the house in Sacramento. VOTE THEM ALL OUT! TERM LIMITS!!
Black Independent:
No reasonable person supports violence on either side of this debate. Did you even vote for Prop. 8?
Did we really have to ask this question? About 52% will say no, and 48% will say yes. Yawn.
Some of the comments on this very page are the best argument for making a legal challenge to Prop 8. Voters blinded by bigotry should not be permitted to determine the civil rights of minorities.
Paul Fitz-Gibbon— Separation of Church and state is not in the constitution… here is the exact text of the first amendment …
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
if the founding fathers wanted the separation of church and state so badly; why did the hire a chaplain? as one of the first acts of congress.
This is just another ploy for the homosexuals to get their gay agenda out. Gay will never been mainstream or accepted as a mainstream idea or lifestyle. We voted, you lost. If you want gay marriage, move to Conn or Mass. Here you get a civil union or nothing. Take it leave it. If you want to march, please head North out of California!
To JakeD….you mentioned about separation of church and state, but if prop 8 passed then it would have affected our churches and there would not have been separation of church and state but rather the state telling the churches to conform to these beliefs and these beliefs would have affected our rights. For the ones who really read the prop, understood this. I am just trying to protect my rights as a parent on how I would like to raise my children.
To Black Independent…..there is no room for hate….shame on you
NO!!!!
Paul Fitz-Gibbon — you said…”It is important that all Americans realize that their country is NOT, and never was intended to be, a Christian nation . . . let alone a religious nation.”
Load of crap– that needs to be flushed..
Let me show a little something from the Declaration on Independence
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Can you tell me what they possibly mean by “endowed by their Creator ” or who is ” their Creator”?
We are founded by Christian and on Christian principles— sorry to burst your bubble….
this is about equality… why not let gays be as miserable as most married people are?? all a child needs is love and who says a child cant grow up in a loving home with same sex parents?? its better than a home where daddy beats mommy and then the child grows up with that mentality….
equality for all is suppose to be constituational… marriage is something defined in a fictional book..
should we not let interracial marriages happen anymore?
The people have already voted.
Black Independent: Did you say the same when blacks were marching for their civil freedoms? How soon you forget.
Why not they challenge Prop. 215 and SB 420 all the time. I thought the “People have spoken” on that issue as well? It is not that difficult to understand people, read the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment. It is pretty clear just like most other issues but the lawyers and politicians like to complicate and make it sound more difficult than it is.
Pat in OC, there is no “gay agenda”. Nobody is trying to make it mainstream, nobody is trying to convert your children to homosexuality, nobody is trying to force YOU to do anything. The people who voted against Prop 8 felt they were not getting equal rights under the law; the people who voted for it had various reasons. Some were legal reasons, some were semantic, and some were outright fear and bigotry of gays. As for your comment about marching, it is their right under the Bill of Rights to march ans assemble wherever they want. Everyone has that right.
Lots of bigots here in the OC, people calling for “elimination” of homosexuals and spewing hate speech against them. Jake D is right, no reasonable person would advocate violence against another person because they disagree on something.
The voting was done and it was passed. If enough people raise a legal challenge, it is their right under the law to do so. From a purely legal standpoint both situations are fine. Its not an issue of “do you support this” or not. The OC Register just put this poll up to watch people go at it. Its not reporting news, its trying to stir up stuff. Report the news, OC Register!
I AGREE WITH PAT. IF YOU ARE SO UPSET WITH THE OUT COME OF THE PROP, THEN MOVE OUT OF CALI AND GO TO A STATE THAT SUPPORTS FAGS. IF YOU WANT TO STAY HERE THEN SHUT UP AND STAY IN SAN FRAN WHERE YOU ALL SHOULD BE. YOU FAGS CAN LIVE TOGETHER AND PASS YOUR DISEASES AROUND TO EACH OTHER.
Shane, turn off the caps lock. Also, its not just homosexuals that get sexual transmitted diseases. Everyone has that ability. But I won’t let facts get in the way of your blind bigotry.
The Gays marching are not considered “reasonable”, JakeD. Why would the fags rally around mainly white churches when whites accounted for 54% of their vote. Blacks and Hispanics accounted for only 30% to 35% of their vote. The Gays should be marching in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Why aren’t they doing so,…….fear???
Fear will come to them if the continue marching where they currently are demonstrating, I’ll bet!!!
Charles R Says: “But marriage is for the propitiation of children, not just for birth but also for upbringing.”
please provide one secular source that proves this. i am not interested in what bible passages you can misquote. if the bible is your only source well thats great and all but why don’t you keep your ancient beliefs to your church and not force them upon the state. if you say being gay is “NOT NATURAL!” then your logic still fails. it is natural. maybe not the norm, may be some abnormality, but it is still definitely a NATURAL abnormality.
according to merriam-webster marriage is:
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union
i don’t see anything in there about children. i know plenty of people that are married that intend on NEVER having kids, so how does this apply to them?
Of course I favor the challenge. Prop. 8 should have never made it to the vote anyway. It is wrong and the challenge will win. It is not a gay issue, it is a matter of civil rights and creating a “separate but equal” situation.
Charles R, what if I want to get married to a person of the opposite sex, but one of us can’t have children? Or what if both of us don’t want children? Should we not be allowed to marry?
The civil rights argument is ridiculous. The legitimization of a immoral and perverse act is not a civil right. Homosexual marriage failed, let’s move on.
GG, bravo. And I have no problem with heterosexuals owning the word “marriage” in a legal sense. If that’s the dictionary definition, then let it stand. However, all consenting adults should have the right to marry another consenting adult and keep the same exact legal rights - hetero or homosexual. If a “civil union” provides the same exact legal rights, then I don’t see what the big problem is. I think a lot of people have very passionate feelings about the word “marriage”. That’s fine; semantics are just that, its just a word. But when people start trying to deny tax-paying citizens rights based on personal intolerance, fear, hatred or bigotry, it flies completely in the face of everything this country was founded on.
Prop 8 passed in a democratically-voted process. And it was close. Those who are disappointed have every right to fight it, march against it, protest it, etc. I support any situation where the citizenry use their rights to challenge, protest, support, and vote for laws or propositions, even if I don’t agree with the outcome or the platform.
SHANE Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I AGREE WITH PAT. IF YOU ARE SO UPSET WITH THE OUT COME OF THE PROP, THEN MOVE OUT OF CALI AND GO TO A STATE THAT SUPPORTS FAGS. IF YOU WANT TO STAY HERE THEN SHUT UP AND STAY IN SAN FRAN WHERE YOU ALL SHOULD BE. YOU FAGS CAN LIVE TOGETHER AND PASS YOUR DISEASES AROUND TO EACH OTHER.
obviously your opposite sex parents didnt teach you tolerance of others… and diseases come from whatever your sexual orentation is… its people with no brains that scare me…
pinky22:
Are laws against polygamy or incest “a matter of civil rights and creating ’separate but equal’ situation[s]” too?
Jake D, those are totally different issues. If someone wants to legally challenge either issue they can. But neither incest nor polygamy have anything to do with homosexual marriage, no more than they have to do with heterosexual marriage.
No, I do not.
Regardless of your feelings on this issue, the bottom line is it was up for a vote, twice, and lost both times. If votes can be overturned because the losers are more vocal than the winners, there is no point in voting and we do not have a say in our government.
Squeaky wheel is not the way to run a country.
People of California had been spoke, Stop wasting Taxpayer $$$$ for this since we are in the recession right now and California in Debt.
Solution: Call all weddings civil ceremonies. If the people in the church want to call it marriage, let them use that terminology.
Of course not.
Where were all the No on 8 people BEFORE the elections? Why were they noty rallying like they are now, or fighting the proposition before it was even put on the ballot?
Because they thought they would win. Now they didn’t they are putting up a stink. And they are entitled to.
This has nothing to do with rights (as under CA family code law 297.5 states that Civil unions (available to all) shall have the same rights, benefits, and protection as married spouses).
It has everything to do with acceptance. They want to have their lifestyle accepted. They are free to do what they like,of course. But there is a good chance it will be taught in schools (CA educational code says that marriage is to be taught in school along with sex ed - look it up) it makes it hard for parents. Teachers will have to teach both.
Look at the back-lash Yes on 8 has gone through? Imagine if they start to preach homosexuality is a sin. Is that preaching hate?
What we need to do is pass a prop that forces companies to recognize the rights already given to them by law.
JakeD Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
pinky22:
Are laws against polygamy or incest “a matter of civil rights and creating ’separate but equal’ situation[s]” too?
Funny you bring up polygamy considering the major backers of “yes” on prop 8 were the Mormon church…
and incest is a total different issue…. you sir, FAIL.
I want to lobby to change the meaning of the word “diaper” because I want it to mean “bank.” And if you don’t like that, I will sue you and protest in the streets because I demand that we change the definition of the word.
I LOVE IT WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO PRAY TO THEIR GOD ON SUNDAY AND SAY TREAT EVERYONE EQUAL AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOR THEN ARE THE BIGGEST HIPOCRATS OF ALL. IT IS TIME TO STOP THE HATED AND DISCRIMINATION THAT IS SPREAD THROUGH ORANGE COUNTY FOR DECADES.
IT IS FUNNY THAT THE CATHOLICS AND THE MORMONS SAY IT IS IN THE NAME OF GOD….. JESUS NEVER DISCRIMINATED…. AND YET MOST OF YOU CHURCH GOING PEOPLE WOULD NEVER EVEN SPEAK TO THE VERY PEOPLE JESUS DID. HOW VERY SAD!
Interesting; the “reader comments” agreement says that this forum prohibits “homophobic” remarks. I wonder who is moderating this forum right now, because a lot of stuff is getting past him or her that I could clearly call “homophobic”, such as calling for the “elimination of homosexuals from our land”
Santiago Sam, go read the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. Anyone has the right to peacefully assemble wherever they want. They are marching in many places, not just in front of churches.
pinky22:
Are you still around?
V-Grove, couldn’t “Creator” mean a deity from other religions, not just Christianity? The Bill of Rights declares we have the right to freedom of religion. This means Christianity, but also Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or the right to abstain from any religious belief. Our country was founded on principles of freedom and liberty, not on “Christianity”. “Creator” does not equal “Christian God” necessarily.
Marriage is between a women and a man, period. The people of this state have now voted twice for the traditional marriage to stay in place. Now if all the gays and lesbians don’t like this there are other states that would be more then happy to take you on.
The fags didn’t mind the proposition being on the ballot, but they did get the outcome that they wanted to see. So now they are all looking like a bunch of idiots out they whinning and crying and taking the case to our courts again. The courts have more then enough to do without cases like these. We can only hope that the judges throw this out the door.
Why aren’t these Prop 8 proponents going after adultery and divorce? Children (presumably every adult was once a child) have been damaged far more by parents staying in unhappy marriages for the supposed “benefit of the children”, or by having their parents divorce more than anything else. Who has done untold damage to the fabric of marriage with a laughable 50% divorce rate? Heterosexuals, or homosexuals?
Here’s an interesting perspective. I don’t care who is wrong and who is right. All I know is it passed. All those challenging it, quit whining. You lost, better luck in 4 years. Seeing people cry, whine, and complain makes me GLAD it passed. Life isn’t perfect, you win some, you lose some. Move on.
NO, the people have spoken. If a court overturns prop 8 that would violate the rights of 52% of the voters. Our vote would have no meaning, So much for democracy in America.
NO
How is polgamy different?
It’s two consenting adults - It’s a lifestyle choice that was made illeagal.
On a separate note - Incest? There are health reasons for this but hey, I have these feelings towards my sister/brother - we are two consenting adults? What’s the harm?
Same thing.
If we want to have marriage defined in our constitution, it’s our right to do so. Take a look at some of the other state constitutions. What does Utah’s say? Are gay marriages legal in Utah?
Then why should they be legal here?
We’ve voted on this twice.
How much more money do we have to waste on this subject?
Civil Unions already offer ALL of the same legal rights as a marriage.
Gay couples are not being denied anything the government has to offer.
Otherwise, why not sue for the right to mark “Female” on your driver’s license and other legal documents, even though you’re biologically male? You can’t say you’re ‘married’ if your partner is the same gender as you. Period.
If this is successfully challenged, the next step will be suing churches who refuse to marry gay couples.
I’m glad it passed. Especially now that the true colors of the No on 8 people have come out.
Stop whining.
tbone:
If we can’t even make same-sex marriage ban stick, good luck banning adultery and no-fault divorce again.
Eric, you’d have protests and people whining and complaining if it didn’t pass. Its the nature of hot-button political topics.
JakeD: “If we can’t even make same-sex marriage ban stick, good luck banning adultery and no-fault divorce again.”
Is this what happened in the states where gay marriage is legal?
Sammy Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Eric, you’d have protests and people whining and complaining if it didn’t pass. Its the nature of hot-button political topics.
**************
Not really. Did you see any mayhem when the 4 judges over-ruled the vote 6 months ago?
Like Carl said - the true colors have come oout and they are not pretty.
David:
I agree with you. What is the difference between polgamy and homosexuals? Can someone explain that to me? Should we let them marry?
David, I wouldn’t call a protest “mayhem”. I saw lots of Yes on Prop 8 rallies before the vote. There was a big one just down the street from me. If there is a successful legal challenge to prop 8 in the future, I bet there will be more rallies and protests on that side. And that is their right! Its not “mayhem”, its using your constitutional rights!
Re: the comment about “true colors” - you’re right, they’re NOT pretty. Calling people “fags”, telling them to get out of California, calling for their “elimination” - VERY UGLY!
Homosexual marriage failed, just like marriage between old people and young children would fail. We will not legalise wife beating or rape or any other perverted sex acts.
The argument that religion can’t be a consideration in the creation of laws is bogus. Paul Fitz-Gibbon wrote: “It is important that all Americans realize that their country is NOT, and never was intended to be, a Christian nation . . . let alone a religious nation.”
But there are similar quotes from nearly all of the founders to the following:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams
The only separation of church and state that is mentioned in the Constitution is that the government can’t pick your religion for you, as was the case in England, before the revolution.
Absolutely No. The legal arguments on these type of issues need to be reviewed prior to being placed on the ballot and not waste time and money. The people have spoken just like they did on gay marriage a few years back and our voice does not get heard. This creates alot of dissension and animosity when these issues are FORCED on the majority of voters. Heck I heard Connecticut and Massachusetts will perform gay marriages, go there and get your piece of paper and come back and apply for Domestic Partnership in Cali. Give me a break already!
Rob - if we can consider “religion” when making laws, but the government cannot PICK the religion…then which religion do we choose when making laws?
Traditional marriage?
Thats a joke. Marriage has been redefined before to include interracial marriage. It was only 41 years ago that marriage was redefine to allow interracial couples to be accepted as a married couple. The majority of people in 1948 i believe voted to NOT allow people to marry out side of their race. Years later the Supreme court over ruled it by saying it was unconstitutional. How stupid does that sound? People didnt allow people to marry out side of their race? Same kind of stupid people we have today. Its not over and you are not going to get it your way. Live your life and follow that word of YOUR God and just like him let the sinners live their life. If you truly belive in God then you should know that its up to him to judge each and everyone one of us, NOT YOU. Unless your God believes in hate, descrimination and intolerance. Live your life and stop telling others what they can and can’t do.
The people have passed this measure twice and it should be enforced. If they do not like it, then move the hell out of this state.These people who want to repeal it are a pain in the ass, and are also boughtersome.
Grey22Ghost I agree with you. If Domestic Partnerships offer the same exact benefits, then legally I see no issue of rights being denied unless you consider ownership of a word to be a right. A lot of the tension comes from what you say about people feeling “forced” to believe one thing or another.
Sammy
You are asking if adultery bans and repeal of no-fault divorce laws happened in Massachusetts (CT just started today) after same-sex marriage became legal? I don’t know, but that wasn’t my point.
JakeD - oh…you were just guessing that would happen? Or throwing out a hypothetical but not factual situation?
The people have spoken. You lost. Go cry a river.
Sammy:
I was answering someone else’s question about why we aren’t going after adultery or no-fault divorce laws. Ideally, I would like to see the law changed in those regards too. But, if we can’t even ban something as egregious as same-sex marriage, there’s no way we can turn the clock on heterosexual sin.
BTW: did you vote for or against Prop. 8?
Re: Black Independants comment:
I am amazed in this day and age we still have people in this country that feel this way. As far as we have come as a nation, comments like this send us back-way back.
Butter:
Unfortunately, if they can convince the same four California Supreme Court Justices who allowed same-sex marriage to overturn Prop. 8, it won’t matter what 5.8 million (and counting) people said.
But,…….you didn’t answer my question, Sammy!!
Why aren’t they demonstrating and marching in the Black and Hispanic neighborhoods?? That’s where they didn’t get their votes!!
Why didn’t the campaign throw it’s gay money around in those areas??? They could have paid them off for nothing. Or were they afraid of the Black and Hispanic churches???
I am all FOR keeping it as it stands, just as long as we can re-instate Prop 187 (which was overturned by the courts back in the 1990’s).
Otherwise, Prop 8 and Prop 187 are NO different in my opinion
.
JakeD, laws are meant to govern rights, not sins. But I see your point and thank you for clarifying. I was merely unsure what your comment was regarding, not all the comments in this “thread” are appearing for me at the same time.
What I voted for doesn’t matter. I am interested in equal rights. Has nothing to do with personal opinions or religious beliefs; I merely want to see all the rights of citizens protected. I agree with the “Yes on Prop 8″ people who have provided factually correct statements such the democratically sound process of constructing the prop, voting on it, etc. They are right - it was voted on and the majority of the voters chose the outcome. But I agree with the “No on Prop 8″ people who wish to use their rights to assemble, protest, and if they so choose, legally challenge Prop 8 if it is their right. But when people start assuming things, or calling people names, or posting comments that I would expect they would refuse to repeat if their face was attached… I do not believe those are reasons for making legal arguments. I hope that makes sense.
V-Grove:
Uh, your comment about “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” DOES NOT MEAN CHRISTIANITY. Creator can mean any type of figure, i.e., buddha, god, Ali, anything or anyone you want to call your Creator. Christianity is one particular label only. Get the meaning straight when you are quoting from our declaration of independence.
Sammy Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
David, I wouldn’t call a protest “mayhem”. I saw lots of Yes on Prop 8 rallies before the vote. There was a big one just down the street from me. If there is a successful legal challenge to prop 8 in the future, I bet there will be more rallies and protests on that side. And that is their right! Its not “mayhem”, its using your constitutional rights!
****************
I would say clogging up all the streets of Los Angels and San Diego and Orange County for hours on end is “Mayhem”. Did you see the traffic they caused?
I would say making the police shut down two freeway exists in San Fransico to protest and scream “shame on you!” to Mormons entering their temple mayhem.
I would say hundreds standing out side of the Catholic church demanding they change their views on homosexuality while climbing on their fences blairing their bull horns mayhem.
I would add that over a dozen arrests have been associated with these protests an addition to the term Mayhem.
Just like with marriage - You need to call it what it is. All though mostly peaceful - there has been some “mayhem”.
Marriage is between a man and a woman - civil unionn (all the same rights under the law) is for a homosexuals.
Clogging up the streets of major cities to voice your opinion (well with in your right) making everyone late to work and their homes - that is mayhem.
Santiago Sam, I don’t think it has anything to do with fear. I haven’t been to the rallies but my best guess is they are protesting in the areas where they 1) feel they’ll get media coverage and 2) where they feel a church (such as the Mormons) supported the bill they are protesting against. But hey, maybe they’ll see your comment and organize in those areas next - who knows? I don’t think it has anything to do with fear though, but thats my speculation just as it is yours.
David - I do not disagree with you. I see your points.
bobbyc:
Prop. 187 was not a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment and arguably exceeded State authority in the federal realm of immigration.
Sammy:
It makes sense that you don’t want to answer simple questions. That’s fine with me. Have a nice life.
David:
I voted YES on 8, but you should look up the definition of “meyhem”. Were there any serious traffic accidents or actual physical assaults (yet)? So far, the protests have been peaceful.
JakeD - which question, what was my vote? I voted No, but I am able to see the POV from people who voted Yes - does that answer your question? I don’t see why it matters.
What was Prop 187 about?? Illegals??
It’s actually spelled MAYHEM: under the common law of crimes, it consisted of the intentional and wanton removal of a body part that would handicap a person’s ability to defend himself in combat. Under the strict common law definition, this required damage to an eye or a limb, while cutting off an ear or a nose was deemed not sufficiently disabling. Later the meaning of the crime expanded to encompass any mutilation, disfigurement, or crippling act done using any instrument. California Penal Code sec. 203: “Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem.”
Sammy:
Yes, that answers my question : )
SantiagoSam:
Yes, Prop 187 was about illegal immigration.
Sammy Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
V-Grove, couldn’t “Creator” mean a deity from other religions, not just Christianity? The Bill of Rights declares we have the right to freedom of religion. This means Christianity, but also Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or the right to abstain from any religious belief. Our country was founded on principles of freedom and liberty, not on “Christianity”. “Creator” does not equal “Christian God” necessarily.
Sammy - sorry to butt in … those who wrote the Constitution came from Western Europe in the 18th Century where the dominant worldview was Christianity. They may not have all been devout or practicing Christians, but their thinking was shaped by Chrisitan prinicples taken from the teachings of the Bible. To suggest that they considered the “God” to which they referred as being anyone other than the God of the Bible is not supported by the historical and epistomological context of the time in which they lived. Nor is it supported by their other writings in which they frequently made reference to the need for a nation of people of moral character made so by the teachings of the Bible. This is not to suggest that our current state of pluralism and securalism should be overturned. It’s too late to go back. But there is no historical support for the idea that the founders envisioned anything other than a Christian nation. Their ideals of freedom and liberty were ones that they envisioned being sustained and regulated by the moral character of a citizenry influenced by the teachings of the Bible.
JakeD Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
David:
I voted YES on 8, but you should look up the definition of “meyhem”. Were there any serious traffic accidents or actual physical assaults (yet)? So far, the protests have been peaceful.
************
Webster’s states: Mayhem-
2: needless or willful damage or violence
There have been reports of vandalism and physical altercations - yes.
just a bunch of verbal diarrhea. You lost, get over it.
As our nation crumbles under the stress of sky rocketing debt (spent $3.5 Trillion in the last 1.5 months), failure of our manufacturing industry immanent, record loss of consumer confidence and an eventual double or perhaps trippling of the jobless rate.
Yea I’m really concerned if gay’s get to have a wedding…
DWinOC, well then you have to get into what kind of Christianity they envisioned. There are many different kinds, from Orthodoxy to modern branch churches. If I agree with your understanding, then we’d have to pick which branch, and I don’t think that’s what the founding fathers envisioned. They envisioned freedom of religion, and that is what we have in this country. The words of the Dec. of Independence are “THEIR Creator” - not “MY Creator” - it leaves it open to the deity of your choice.
Remember the original inhabitants of our country came here because they wanted to practice a different branch of Christianity than was in fashion during 18th century W. Europe, which was full of ITS own conflicts over which Christian faith to adhere too.
no
call it something else. not marriage.
that word has already been defined.
are we gonna go back and change the whole dictionary?
where is the tolerance of opposite sex marriage!?
BF - good point…heh.
Jake D, I agree with Sammy, polygamy and incest are completely different issues. They are crimes. Being gay is not a crime. It is not even a choice, it is biological. Do you think people would be in some of the situations they are if they had a choice?
David:
I guess they would argue the “needless” part ; )
DWinOC:
I agree with you as to the broad term “Founding Fathers” but you are aware that a few individuals were Deists (most notably Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin)?
Sammy: I’m not saying that any one religion has to be picked to make laws, but I’m saying that laws don’t have to be free of any religion to be enacted. My point about John Adams’ quote was to refute Mr. Fitz-Gibbons’ view that we were never meant to be a religious nation.
pinky22:
I would be more than happy to answer your question, just as soon as you answer mine.
Bottom line…..
If I am Gay and pay taxes, I should have the same right as a straight person to legally marry. End of story.
I for one am pleased that we are getting back on track in California. Too long have we been defined by what the gays in Hollywood and San Francisco are doing. There’s a great many other communities and we don’t want ridiculous minorities like the gay community pushing a 10% ideology on the rest of us.
I can only hope that this victory for tradition continues and we can garner enough support to repeal interracial marriage. We were made different colors by our Creator so we would know who to associate with and who not to.
YES- I do agree. You should not take away someones rights based on a 50/50 vote. It should have to be more than half.
Sammy:
It seems as if one’s “first” comment is delayed until the moderator approves, which is why you don’t see every comment right away. I do agree with you that the OC Register is part of the problem trying to stir things up (but then so is Bill O’Reilly pointing out that gays should start protesting black churches too ; )
Dana:
It was more than half. In fact, a tied, 50/50 vote would have meant Prop. 8 failed.
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm
To be precise, it was 52.3% in favor. 5,987,332 votes (and still counting)
They chose the word “Creator” quite deliberately… they could have gone with “God” and that would make your argument stronger but they didn’t… they used “Creator”…
“CREATOR”, from the declaration of independence, does mean the Christian God!!! Buddha is not a “creator” for the simple reason that earth was already here when he was walking around.
little known fact: Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers…
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
JakeD,
The constitution says NOTHING about marriage. Prop 187 was a prop that would have upheld the current immigration laws already on our books (remember illegal immigration is ILLEGAL, and as far as most other illegal things go, if you don’t report illegal activity, your become a party to that crime!)
All I am saying is; if Prop 187 (which passed in 1994 with an overwhelming majority) can be overturned as un-constitutional, so can Prop 8 (just as the former gay-marriage Prop 22 was earlier this year).
I guess our forefathers should have written something about marriage; otherwise, it’s more of a personal moral decision, and not a public one.
Personally it does not effect me anyway what-so-ever, however, I do see a trend in America of religion becoming FAR too political, and separation of church and state, becoming less and less evident (especially after eight years of Bush).
I personally don’t want to live in a country like Iran, where religion dominates the populace, and the people are forced to live under a religious theocracy. We are Americans, and thus should set our sights FAR from that of countries like Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, we might as well join our enemies, as they LOVE the fact that most of our religions are against homosexuals.
Sammy … Sorry, I have to disagree somewhat. Those who came for religious reasons did so to escape a Church in England that had become heavily influenced by the state. Many of the Christians leaving Europe seeking religious freedom had been persecuted for their refusal to accommodate the mandates of the state. They were not leaving Europe to create a new version of Christianity but to find a place where their Christian faith would not be intruded upon by the state. That is the context of Jefferson’s writing into the Constitution the prohibition on state sponsored religion, ie, the separation of church and state.
Finally, whether you’re talking about those Christians who were Anabaptists, Puritans or any other sect or denomination, fundamentally they were all Christian. They adhered to the teachings of the Bible. That is a far cry from embracing other religions like Hinduism, Islam, etc.
V-Grove:
This thread is not about the Founding Fathers or Documents (another little know fact though: the U.S. Constitution actually refers to JESUS CHRIST as “our Lord” ; )
I have a question.
Where exactly do you people find that the Constitution mandates separation of church and state?
The separation of church and state was an idea and tradition that our founding fathers wanted to prevent a Church of America from rising and taking control, such as the Church of England had at the time.
Our founding fathers were still deeply religous men and had Christian ideals in everything. Where do you think they got ideas such as all men created equal and In God We Trust.
The first amendment is definitely not a mandate to limit religion, but to let it openly flourish. And has been quite successful with our many different religious views that are all respected here; everything from Catholic to Islam to Mormon.
Please quit saying that separation of church and state is constitutionally mandated. It is a tradition that was passed from our founding fathers.
Pinky22, the point about homosexuality being biological is still speculation and not yet academic, however, many serial killers show evidence of biological differences and we consider their actions to be crimes. Until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and could land a person in an asylum. They were treated as criminals, which is wrong. Scary thing that people could consider homosexuality as biological and also have abortion legal. Someone may try to eradicate homosexuality along with serial killers. It may be happening in some other country now. Sounds a little like Nazi Germany.
No.
bobbyc:
Actually (unless the California Supreme Court does something about it), the State Constitution does say something about marriage:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Jake D … Yes, I’m aware some were Deists. Thanks. A Deist worldview would be closer to a Christian worldview than would that of other world religions.
Instead of calling them “gay”, why dont we call them what they really are. Sodomites.
homosexual is a lifestyle, not natural…
DWinOC, I disagree with your interpretation of history and the role of Christianity/the Bible when it comes to making laws (since many of those come from the old Testament, which is actually used by the Jews as well, and Paul refuted many of the OT rules in the NT as Jesus taught and encouraged tolerance and loving ones neighbor as themself), but thats a discussion for another day.
They were actually considered christian deists.
This is really getting old! What is it telling the kids? I personally disagree with the same sex getting married.
John:
If I am an adult brother and pay taxes, I should have the right to legally marry my adult sister then, correct? End of story.
I miss Old Testament God. New Testament God is a little too happy-touchy-feely for my tastes. He doesnt lay waste to things like He used to. Like…hmmm…SODOM
This thread went from one topic to another. The original comment by JakeD was most accurate - “Every law (including Prop. 8 ) must have SECULAR reasons”
The history of the founding fathers etc etc matters none with this. They had nothing to say about gay marriage. We can speculate ’til the cows come home but unless we go back in time and ask Jefferson what he thought we should do, we’re just guessing. American citizens have the freedom to practice any religion they want - including the freedom FROM any religion if they choose.
Irving:
I would suspect the poll should actually be MORE than 52% “no” (because many of those who voted against Prop. 8 are finally having their eyes opened by these protests ; )
Sammy:
My comments are ALWAYS most accurate ; )
And, I suspect even Jefferson would have supported the death penalty for homosexual behavior.
Brandon:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution (and, when you think about the direction we are headed, when Christians may soon become the minority, you may find “separation of church and state” much more comforting than you think about it right now ; )
Jake
That would be incest,
not even the same thing we are talking about. Again, If I have to pay taxes which I do regardless of anyones religious views, I should have the equal right to marry anyone I want. If it is a family member, that is my call. Would I? No. I’m just stating that if someone who pays taxes cannot be treated equally as others, then they should not have to pay taxes then because they are not equal under current laws. By the way, I am straight. I just know what is right and wrong. You are all letting your religious views get in the way of it. End of story.
JakeD
Jefferson wouldnt have just supported the death penalty for gays he wouldve ENFORCED it. Kind of like, I dont know, a Final Solution to the Gay Question
JakeD - on second thought, let’s not ask Jefferson. :-/
Linda Hernandez - I would hope you are teaching your children the values that you want them to adhere to. You are their biggest influence, not a law or proposition or a TV show or whatever. If you personally disagree, then THAT is what is being taught to your children.
Absolutely NOT! All this ridiculousness is a disgrace to the democratic process. The people have voted. Overturning the vote would be an insult the democratic process and the people of California.
Okay, guys. Look. Homosexuality is not a new thing. It wasn’t even a new thing when the Constitution was written. So if the founding fathers in their infinite wisdom chose not to specifically disallow it in the Constitution, who are you to say what their intent was?
With regard to “moral nation” quotes from founding fathers, OF COURSE they would have to claim moral high ground. In order to form a more perfect union, you have to feel that your collection of lawyers, farmers and politicians know better than any other similar looking collection. I’m sure a lot of the people they sought to regard as immoral were ALSO Christians. Atheism didn’t exactly have a public cross section back then. I have serious doubts that when the First Amendment was established, they intended it to mean “pick whichever sect of Christianity you want.”
(Little known fact: The slaves that Thomas Jefferson fornicated with were MEN)
It was Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve.
End of Discussion!
John:
You are saying incest is “your call”?! Or, are you saying that a brother and sister can stop paying taxes if they just have sex? I’m confused.
Religion was around a long time before the U.S. and California.
Marriage has it’s orgin in religion.
The state decided to get involved in marriage by issuing marriage licenses (probably a fund raiser), thereby seperation of Church and State in this issue is impossible as long as the state issues marriage licenses (and let’s not go into divorce court).
I agree with the OC Register, the state should not be involved in issuing marriage licenses. But since they are, let’s keep it where it belongs, religious based.
To say it’s a civil rights issue is wrong too. No where in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about Gays and Lesbians. It’s about Race, Religion, Color or Creed, not sexual orientation. If it did, it would be okay to be a pedophile.
To over ride the Prop 8 would be the same as telling most religions what to believe. Now where’s the seperation of Church and State going to begin and stop?
Let it go, the masses have spoken. Otherwise, it’s going to the Feds, and knowing how mass America feels, the Gays and Lesbians will lose. Why don’t they boycott California, since California is trying to boycott them. Maybe they should consider moving Mass. or Conn.
Sammy:
That’s what I thought.
1) The No on 8 people can challenge in court, but they will lose. The only initiative in California history that was ruled a REVISION of the state constitution as opposes to an AMENDMENT contained THOUSANDS OF WORDS AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS. Prop 8 contains a MERE 14 OPERABALE WORDS. It’s not even a close call. But they can try.
Whatever the cause of homosexuality – be it genetic, environmental, or whatever – I empathize with those who feel this and especially those who valiantly struggle to resist this urge. Some here and elsewhere have said that they would not “choose homosexuality”, that it is not their choice and that it has been a difficult way to live. I empathize. I can only imagine based on my observations that homosexual tendencies (chose a different word if you want) are extremely difficult to live with and to overcome. I wish you no ill.
.
2) Whether or not it is the agenda of the gay community in general to force teaching of gay marriage in the schools, it will happen if we allow gay “marriage”. Soon after gay “marriage” becomes established in California, at least one gay person (and one is all it will take) will sue claiming discrimination because their first-grade child’s textbooks, story books, etc. have stories based around heterosexual married couples (something like “Mr. and Mrs. Jones owned a farm …”) but not based on a gay couple (”Mister and Mister Jones …). They will sue because, as they claim, gay marriage is a “fundamental right”, and to exclude it from the curriculum is a violation of that right. AND THEY WILL WIN.
.
3) The same logic applied to my comment #2 above will apply in many aspects of life to numerous to list, or even to imagine.
.
4) NATURE has determined that children are born to HETEROSEXUALS ( or at least those who partake in heterosexual activity). If RELIGION happens to agree with NATURE, that hardly changes NATURE or is the fault of religion. Sorry, Prop 8 opponents, but it is those who wish to pretend that homosexual acitivity (activity that CANNOT produce offspring) is equivalent to heterosexual activity. This fantasy is AT ODDS WITH NATURE. That seems obvious enough.
.
5) Californians have already bent over backwards ( no pun intended, but accidental pun kind of funny) to give those who chose to live homosexual lifestyles rights equivalent to married couples. To the extent, if any, that this is not true most of even those who voted in favor of Prop 8 support this. I support it, but I’m beginning to have second thoughts about that. “Give an inch …”
.
6) Where a radical change in the basic structure of society is proposed, the burden to show that the change is beneficial is on he who favors the change and NOT on he who favors the status quo. In this case, it will take at least one generation (the period of time to see the results of legally sanctioned gay marriages) of experimentation to see the effects of the proposed change. Massachusetts, with a population of 6 million provides a testing population more than large enough for the experiment without risking the bulk of this United States of America and its great society on the experiment.
.
7) I would be surprised that more than a very small percentage of even homosexuals would believe that the BEST, HEALTHIEST AND MOST IDEAL HOME for a child is that of a LOVING MOTHER AND FATHER. Although many homes fall short of this for lack of love, a mother, or a father, it remains the BEST, HEALTHIEST AND MOST IDEAL. This is what the word “MARRIAGE” represents. Sorry, homosexuals, but the best you can provide within a homosexual relationship is less than the best possible. It is in the INTEREST OF SOCIETY AND CHILDREN to uphold “MARRIAGE” as this BEST, HEALTHIEST, AND MOST IDEAL HOME.
.
Prop 8 was supposed to keep homosexual teachers from teaching in our schools. It passed.
Let’s move on!
I don’t understand what you all have against gay people. It’s a different way to live, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Take a look at yourselves first before you judge others.
Thou shall not Murder is in the Bible. Should we cry, march and protest to make murder legal.
You lost GET OVER IT!!!
Lets spend our tax paying money on saving our economy. Too many people losing their jobs and houses.
I would rather incestual marriage be legal than gay marriage because
A) it can result in kids
B) it’s a man and a woman like God intended
We’re all distantly related to Adam and Eve, so technically everything is varying levels of incest.
Good point. I would rather incestual marriage be legal than same-sex (before Prop. 8 passed, even heterosexual fraternity members could have tied the knot) marriage too.
the whole reason why i bought that into play is a lot of arguments on the no on prop 8 side is the “separation of church and state”.
And they say it without regards to the truth of what that means… my argument is that the constitution protect our freedom to exercise our religion and does not tell us to separate “our church” from “our state” or more precisely to separate “our faith” from “our policies”.
Essentially, they are telling me it is improper and wrong the vote based on my faith and believes. Sorry… I Vote God!!!
So you guys dont judge me for making out with my cousin last year at Christmas?
In fact, if the California Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8, I am going to find a brother and sister living in shame and file a lawsuit for them to get some acceptance in this world!
Matt Sawyer
As long as it wasn’t your male cousin.
V-Grove:
Anyone who says; “it is improper and wrong the vote based on my faith and beliefs” is ignorant of U.S. history.
Matt Sawyer:
Ha ha, very funny.
Matt Sawyer, it doesn’t count if you were drunk
V-Grove: Sorry… I Vote God!!!
While I agree wholeheartedly that the shame of California is the 48% that voted no on Prop 8, we cannot vote simply according to what God wants.
And believe me, what was repealed on Nov. 4 is repugnant enough on its own without God’s say-so that we don’t need to drag Him into this.
Matt Sawyer:
I suspect, if you are even registered to vote in Calfiornia, you voted NO on Prop 8.
Matt Sawyer:
You make Jake D look like Martin Luther King Jr. Why are you so hateful?
JakeD:
If you’ve never been sideswiped by an Asian in a Honda Civic, then I have serious doubts that you live in OC.
ckone:
I suspect that “Black Independant” voted NO on Prop 8 as well.
What a bunch of low life, hateful irrational homophobes on here, minus the few intelligent souls.
Does your God, regardless of the religion, approve of such hateful thought?
It’s amazing how people justify hate and pick and choose passages to live by.
And the arguments about incest and beastiality are being brought up by straight opposed to same-sex marriage - those are the sick people twisting the truth about this all.
Gregory:
Obviously, not everyone who lives in Orange County has been sideswiped by an Asian, in a Honda Civic or one of those tricked out Lexus lowriders (I live in San Diego, so we get Border Patrol chases instead ; )
My whole point of the mayhem (which I have spelt “mayhem”) was to respond to the comment of “Oh the yes on 8 would have done the same.”
They already had the chance and didn’t.
caseclosed Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
We will not legalise wife beating or rape or any other perverted sex acts
You’re right - straight people have all those bases covered.
JakeD: we get Border Patrol chases instead ; )
Fleeing criminals or sneaky Mexicans?
Every BS argument I’ve heard by the “YES on 8″ when inspected closely is Null, Void or Moot.
Prop 8 is based on HATE, and HATE alone.
Jake says “Marriage is about Children”
Jake, Please explain what you mean?
Your Point is Null and Moot since TWO MEN (one with a “Partial Sex Change Operation” he still has male genitalia) have had a child and one is on the Way.
Others Say “it’s Against Religion”.
So is Slavery, Incest, Polygamy AND Killing a Wife that is not a Virgin…
OOPS, Correction - THOSE WERE ALL SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE !
Until Laws were Made to correct those Horrid “RELIGOUS” Beliefs.
Changing the CONSTITUTION (US or SATE) by a simple (minded) majority Vote is OK?
Nope. It Takes a 2/3rd Vote of the masses, and then the Legislature.
This was done to avoid such things like this Prop 8 Hate and Hitler type people from STEALING ALL OF OUR RIGHTS FROM US.
DWinOC said some were Deists…
Actually You left out George Washington.
Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, because from the time Jamestown was founded in 1507 to the Constitution’s writings… Over 400 Religious Wars were fought in the English Colonies Alone.
Look up such examples, like Mass vs Conn around 1655.
These Deists were definitely GDT (T stands for Tried) of ALL the Religious killings in the Colonies by the time they got around to writing the Constitution… Many of these “Deists” or their Parents lived through these various Wars. And felt that the New Nation would be better off without future wars o Religion.
Most People Don’t know their own US history or they would not Fight so hard to begin Holy Wars again.
You can see the effects of “Holy Wars” in the Middle-east Every day.
BTW, Prop 8 didn’t absolve MY marriage. (gay, two males)
I was married on the 1st day allowed by the masses.
June 17th 2008
I’ve been together with my mate for 14 years…
How many of you married Homophobes can say that?
So I guess that makes “Our” marriage something “Special”?
I think I want to “Down grade” to the junk everyone else has.
I may have to Sue to have it too.
I mean, if I get Divorced…
Can I remarry because I was married even after Prop 8 started?
Do I have to Marry ONLY someone who was Divorced after Prop 8 started? Doesn’t matter if he’s gay, straight or Bi, wouldn’t that put serious limitations of my Constitutional Freedom, and the Declaration of independence’s rights to Life, Liberty and My pursuit of Happiness?
And Don’t even get me started on the Rights of Taxation because of the Founding Fathers reasoning of “No Taxation without Representation”.
We, gays are taxed for the various things related to the institution of Marriage.
Yet if we don’t have equal access to that institution we shouldn’t have to pay for it.
Examples include, but not limited to: Schools, Child Welfare Programs (if they say Children are of Marriage - I feel they are of Family Court and have no part of Marriage. If they did there would be NO DIVORCES and MORE SHOT-GUN WEDDINGS) and all the various tax breaks allowed to Married Couples that “Domestic Partnerships” DON’T GET.
And we have the Supreme Court Rulings that “Separate but Equal, ISN’T”.
Also, we have the President Ruling that we are all equal under the State Constitution…
So to Take Away a Persons “civil Rights” (aren’t you all foolishly Proud of your Christian heathen actions?
AND It’s the 1st Time such a thing has ever happened) is just plain UN-AMERICAN.
Prop 8 is everything the biggest of Terrorists could have ever hoped for…
Because it’s the Destruction of America and the “Real” American lifestyle that represents - Peace, Freedom and Happiness - that America had held forth and had Promised to ALL its Citizens.
(And if it matters, my Great-Great Uncle was Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.) So I and my family know a little about History, Bigotry, State-Rights AND right and wrong.
Do you know that the President We JUST ELECTED was Born of a Marriage that up until 1967 was Illegal in 18 of the States He’s NOW (as of Jan. 20th 2009) is going to be President of… Because His Parents were Black and White Couple? (I’ll bet Religious zealots said that was against the Bible too, when that was RULED against the Law by (get this…) THE COURTS!
So Yes, I will FIGHT against anything that’s Prop 8 !
Because I am, a TRUE Patriotic American.
From YouTube (Type in “Obermann Prop 8” if you don’t trust my link)
See the Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Proposition 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4xfMisqab8
at YouTube Videos
David:
I understood your point, and I was correcting MY misspelling.
Gregory:
Aren’t illegal aliens considered both?
Chris (that was quite a bit, so I will start with your first canard):
I have never said “Marriage is about Children”. In fact, I specifically noted yesterday at 2:02 pm “That’s not the only reason (since widow and widowers have to raise children too). ” (Emphasis Added)
JakeD:
if you had to sleep with another man or your mother, who would you choose?
Marriage is NOT a right!
Marriage is Man + Woman.
Matt Sawyer:
Because Jesus was a Jew, and they were created in God’s image just like you and me (I also don’t “hate” homosexuals, if that’s what you are implying). Are you a homosexual?
Mushrooms:
Well, my mother has passed, so I would choose another man (although I would only sleep, not have sex).
Its funny how one person commented that Catholics/Christians are a Hypocrite because we always say love one another since christ loved us… But christ also created just a man and a woman, not both combined together, so for the person who calls Catholics/Christians hyprocrites, What are you? Are you not disobeying gods commandment??? The bible states a man and a woman shall leave his mother and thy father and become one… It never said along the line that a woman and a woman nor a man to a man be united in holy matrimony either? We are not hating on homosexuals, we are only standing firm on morality issues, and the upbrinings of a children. For goodness sake, if a homosexual wants a union, go right ahead, but leave the marriage up to a man and a woman, you guys can still be living partners, just not have it on legal binding documents? What difference does it make? For us, its a big difference, why would we want our children growing up knowing that its okay to marry the same sex? For the homoesexuals out there, if you guys want to protest this, please take it to the supreme court, because all the yes on 8 will jut continue to over ride your votes.. Have some morals before you die, i don’t think God will be so accepting of someone he didn’t create to begin with…
JakeD:
oh come on, don’t skirt the question. if your mother were alive and in decent shape, would you rather have carnal relations with her or another man? you have to choose one.
Chris:
If you don’t understand the basics of human plumbing, why should trust any of your legal arguments?
JakeD:
There’s no real distinction from the two anyway.
JakeD
No I am not a homosexual. I am man who loves women. You really dont think the jews are behind most of this though? Really?
Citizens for Putting an End to Nonsense:
Sally Hemmings was NOT a man.
Mushrooms:
There’s got to be a third option, like a bullet in the head or something like that (otherwise, I would choose “neither”). Even Sophie got a choice.
Matt Sawyer:
Whether you are or are not homosexual, I suspect you favor same-sex marriage. And, no, I really dont think “the jews are behind most of this”. Next canard?
whoa lots more comments.
To the John who listed a bunch of things:
Re 2) You are trying to tell the future, but you can’t. I had people tell me on the day before the election “If we elect Obama, all of chicago is going to burn in race riots! IT WILL HAPPEN!” It didnt. You’re speculating, and there’s no way to say what WOULD happen.
Re 4) Nature made it so that I cannot have children. Should I be denied the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex? What if I’m older than the age of viable fertility?
Re 7) I disagree; many male/female marriages have proven extremely unsuccessful in raising children; many single-parent/non-traditional guardian (such as a grandma, aunt, etc) raising children has been shown to be successfully. There is nothing that two men or two women cannot do as parents that a male/female couple would do in terms of raising a child. That is your opinion and it is fundamentally unsound. Children need loving PARENTS - or parent, if the case may be. Love comes from a parent regardless of that parent’s gender.
JakeD:
There is no third option. That’s why it’s a dilemma. You have to choose, otherwise it would be a no-brainer.
So choose.
Jake D
Why do you keep calling me a Sodomite. I respect you because you are a fellow Brother in Christ but I feel like you don’t hate the Gays as much as Jesus wouldve wanted
Chris -
Prop 8 is not against hate - stop pushing that.
I don’t hate gay people at all. Some wonderful people I know are gay.
That being said I don’t have to agree with the lifestyle. Gays have all the same rights under the law as a traditional marriage.
Prop 8 asked me: do you think we should change the definition?
My answer was no: we should keep the definition the same as it’s always been (Yes on 8).
Don’t push back on me and say that I hate people just becasue I don’t approve of their lifestyle choice. I have seen a lot more hate from the No on 8 crowd than the Yes on 8 crowd.
Don’t be intolerant of my beliefs given that you have all the “same legal rights, protections, and benefits” as me. CA family cose 297.5
Let me keep my definition - you have yours.
This is not a civil rights issue at all. It is a social and moral issue (the majority don’t agree with it)
Val:
You had me right up until the last implication that homosexuals are not people created by God.
I just want to post one question.
How many Athiests are posting on this thread?
David:
“This is not a civil rights issue at all. It is a social and moral issue (the majority don’t agree with it)”
If the majority decides that premeditated murder is acceptable, does that make it right?
“Don’t push back on me…”
Excellent choice of words.
JakeD:
I’m waiting on your answer
A bigoted majority should not be able to veto the basic human rights of a minority they despise - no way, no how. Should white Californians be able to enslave all black Californians again on a majority vote? Of course not. Neither should homophobic Californians be able to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry. This vote was the most shameful display of hatred and bigotry in the history of California.
Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality. But he did say, “Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you.” I just wonder how many of those who voted for prop 8 would like it if I voted for a proposition that invalidated THEIR marriage and took away THEIR children. These are the same sanctimonious hypocrites who thought they were pleasing God when they crucified Jesus.
Mushrooms:
No.
Matt Sawyer:
Because no true Christian would “hate the Gays”. Jesus Christ preached love and died on the Cross for their sins too.
Wow Val, that’s big of you to condemn people to hell like that. It must be God’s day off.
Quit asking about this We voted. 8 passed it’s over for the 3rd time. It’s over! Get over it! The Homosexuals think they were born into it. Not true they choose to. common sense tells you what sex should be with what sex. The animals even know. They are thinking with wisdom lower than the animals or choosing to be wicked. Either way I’ll pray for their repentance. John 3:16-For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
I already said I would choose “neither”.
Sammy:
I think Val meant to refer to “acceptance” of same-sex marriage, not that God didn’t create homosexuals per se.
I think the fundamental flaw in the No on 8 argument is that the supporters are equating a desired action as a right. What they’re advocating is that so long as two people love each other they should be allowed to marry but that isn’t a right; it’s more of a title they wish to be conferred on them by the state. By any extension of that argument, all consenting activities between adults could be considered a right which is absurd but that’s the logical path this takes.
My view is that the state doesn’t have the right to define conduct between consenting adults however when that action impacts moral choices not only here, but in all the other states, then it because something beyond just gay people wanting marriage rights. It’s folly to think this is limited to CA in the course and scope of implication and it shouldn’t be viewed as such.
JakeD I gotta hand it to you, you’re handling this pretty gamely
JakeD:
Sally Hemmings was a hermaphrodite. This is confirmed in Jefferson’s own diaries.
David:
“I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Important words in matters such as these. Who cares if you don’t agree with the “lifestyle”
Charles R,
So would you say then that parents who adopt are not truly parents?
Or how about if the woman uses a sperm donor because the husband is sterile, or vice versa?
Would you then say that these people are not real parents as well, would they be step parents?
If that’s the case you’re going to upset A LOT of parents out there.
Mushroom:
I see your point. But tell me, do you agree with poligamy?
As far as murder goes - The murder’s actions clearly infringe on the rights of the victim, the right to life. Homosexuality won’t take away my rights - so it is a topic that can up for debate as to the moral core of it.
It all comes down to if you think it is okay to practice homosexuality.
But the lifestyle is a threat to those who disagree with it as it can be taught to children as they grow up as being something acceptable - hence propogating something they don’t agree with.
“Citizens for Putting an End to Nonsense”. Please by all means put a end to your nonsense! John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Sammy:
Thanks. Did you see this?
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369
Citizens for Putting an End to Nonsense:
Do you have a link?
A co-worker of mine (who is gay) said that when he and his partner choose to adopt a baby they would hope it would “turn out” gay so they would be able to better relate to it.
What kind of ideas do you think this child would be taught while growing up? Especially if the parents want them to turn out gay?
That is the concern. Acceptance of gay marriage would only propogate this.
David, parents should teach their children what they WANT them to believe. Kids are not taught by “the gays” to be gay. No reasonable gay person, seeing the level of bigotry and hatred that is out there, wishes for anyone else to go through that with them. Honest. The gay “lifestyle” is and has never been a “threat” to anything. Its existed for centuries alongside heterosexual lifestyles, and kids keep getting made. If parents are really concerned, then TALK to your kids.
It’s getting pretty heavy in here,……ha!!!
David, those parents can hope all they want, that kid will be gay or straight regardless of what people say. I know many gay people who were raised in extremely strict homes which preached out against the homosexual lifestyle. It has nothing to do with what parents “hope”…many parents hoped their gay children would be straight.
David:
“It all comes down to if you think it is okay to practice homosexuality.
But the lifestyle is a threat to those who disagree with it as it can be taught to children as they grow up as being something acceptable - hence propogating something they don’t agree with.”
Do I think it is okay? I think that what two consenting men or women do in the privacy of their own home is their business and I don’t really care. if they choose to fornicate, that is their business and i have no reason to stop them.
As for the argument of the children, i don’t consider children being taught tolerance as a problem. Will children being taught that it’s okay for people to be gay cause them to be gay? No, that’s ridiculous. If someone had told you that it’s ok to be gay, when you were 8 years old, would you all of a sudden start liking other guys? Would you suddenly become attracted to them? Probably not.
It’s about not thinking that your way is the only way
John 3:16-21-16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
17. For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.
18. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.
20. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved.
21. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.
I favor the challenge.
JakeD - what a strange protest. That makes no sense, why are they protesting there? I’m all for fighting for your rights but I’m not sure what the purpose of that is, unless it was just to make mayhem (like those “anonymous” people I keep seeing outside the Scientology center)
I don’t know why you guys are talking about marriage.
Wasn’t Prop 8 to keep homosexuals from teaching in schools?
You people need to pick up a newspaper.
David:
The “practice” of homosexuality is acceptable regardless of your desire to intellectually stunt your children, which you could do anyway. The fact that homosexuals are allowed to publicly identify themselves as homosexuals and not be stoned to death or shunned from society proves that the whole “[marriage] will make homosexuality as a whole acceptable” stance is ridiculous.
It already is acceptable to be gay.this is a last ditch effort by the bigots in California to suppress civil rights.
Bigots and fundamentalists would like to make sure that their marriages are somehow more legitimate than those of gays by saying “civil unions AREN’T marriages” even though they’re insisting they aren’t taking rights away. They’re trying to remove the right of select citizens of this country to say that they are not on equal footing, even if only in a semantic way. It’s psychological upper hand nonsense, especially since most of their fundamentalist leaders are having gay trysts on the side.
I think I’d go north.
Ignorance says: “it can be taught to children as they grow up as being something acceptable - hence propogating something they don’t agree with.”
the truth replies: Homosexuality can’t be “taught to children” like arithmetic - people are either homosexual or they are not. No children are injured or become gay simply by being educated to the fact that other people are born gay. On the contrary, it is the gay and lesbian children who are severely injured and traumatized - and taught to hate themselves. These are the children that you presume to have the right to continue to abuse by insisting that they be taught that who they are is shameful.
JakeD:
I’ll provide a link when you give a proper answer to the Mushrooms dilemma.
Jesus Kid:
I believe in Jesus. I just don’t believe in the state’s right to legislate morality.
None of these arguments matter anymore. The issue has been written into the California constitution. Thus, no state judge, even an activist one, can overturn it without using a federal constitutional claim. In that case it will end up getting appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court where, once again, the supremes will state that 1) laws targeting homosexuals are not subject to equal protection clause scrutiny and 2) marriage is the exclusive province of the states to handle as they wish. The only thing that happens in a legal challenge is lawyers make money, the outcome is already certain.
Sammy:
I’m afraid it’s going to get much worse before it gets better.
Citizens for Putting an End to Nonsense:
Our discussion is not dependant upon my answer to someone else. I’m curious, though, what you don’t think is “proper” about my answer NEITHER.
Gay civil union is legal. Gay marriage is illegal.
Civil union and marriage are equal.
Civil union and marriage are separate, but equal.
Hmmm “separate, but equal” where did we hear that before?
Oh yeah, it was Brown v. Board of Education, and it was determined to be unconstitutional. So Prop 8 supporters have no real argument to say that Prop 8 is valid.
Jonnymax:
If they are going to overturn it, the California Supreme Court will try to do so on State grounds.
Mushroom- you never answerd my question about Poligamy - Do you think it is correct or should it be made legal to practice?
If your answer is no - then you should be against gay marriage too.
Mushrooms:
You mean OTHER than the 5,987,332 (and counting) reasons we’ve already given?
David:
What does poligamy have to do with anything? Two people getting married does not equal three people getting married to each other. Your question has no bearing on this.
P.S. Immutable race is not the same as deviant sexual behavior (and even if you don’t think so, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to agree with me).
JakeD:
It isn’t a proper answer because it isn’t one of the choices. It’s an either/or question. There is no third option. You don’t have to like any of the choices to make a decision, and your avoiding the question tells more about you than you realize.
And our conversation is dependent on it because there’s no point in trying to have an honest conversation with someone who has proven they can’t honestly answer a completely hypothetical question that has no repercussions.
JakeD:
Your irrelevant moral objections don’t supercede the legal framework of our country. Sorry to burst your bubble. You haven’t provided one actual reason that doesn’t have to do with “I just don’t like it because I’m afraid a them queers!!!”
you said separate but equal - not the law.
No, but HELL NO! We voted on this TWICE already!!! Do you really want to have the Supreme Court overturn the Will of the People just to have it on the ballot again in 2 years???? How much money do you want to waste on this issue? My answer again is NO!!!!!!!!
To all you protesters, Give it a rest and live with it. There have been several propositions/laws I disagreed (the Assault Weapons Ban just to name one — what a joke of a law) with but I have to live with it. That’s why we have a democracy. We voice our opinions, we take a vote and we live with the outcome.
Ignorance says: “None of these arguments matter anymore. The issue has been written into the California constitution. Thus, no state judge, even an activist one, can overturn it.”
the facts say: The California Supreme Court can overturn it since revising the Constitution requires more than a majority vote. The US Supreme Court has already overturned Sodomy laws aimed specifically at homosexuals based upon privacy and equal protection. And even if the courts don’t do the right thing, eventually the majority of the people in California will. It’s just a matter of time - so get used to it. It’s going to happen, whether you want it or not.
What this whole situation boils down to is that you want to impose your beliefs on someone else.
Opponents of gay marriage: “I don’t want you to have this right because of my beliefs.” This affects other people
Gay people who want to get married. “I want to get married to the person I love.”This does not affect other people
OC417:
If they passed a law that said internet douchebags weren’t allowed to get married, wouldn’t you fight to have your rights restored?
No…. The election is over and Prop. 8 passed. If everyone challenged every election result that didn’t go their way, there would become even more voter apathy. Why vote if the result can then be over turned each time? It demeans the whole voting process….
The Democratic majority in CA voted in favor of this prop. 8. No matter how many people are out their protesting, it is still less than those who went to the polls and voted this Prop. 8 in.
Instead, why not strengthened the current Domestic Partnership laws?
For the record, Mushrooms asked: “if you had to sleep with another man or your mother, who would you choose?” I answered that already (if it can’t be “neither” although I have heard no reasonable scenario why it couldn’t be): “… I would choose another man …” Next canard?
Ignorance says: “No, but HELL NO! We voted on this TWICE already!!!”
Reality replies: Civil rights don’t happen overnight. It was 100 years between the time that slaves were freed and blacks finally received the same Civil Rights as white people. It took women several decades of protests to win the right to vote. This issue should be placed on the ballot in every election until everyone has the same right to marry. Those who don’t like how democracy works shouldn’t use the ballot to take away the rights of others.
Jill:
To be fair, I have urged John SIDNEY McCain to file a lawsuit contesting that election ; )
Ummm wow I guess I should turn in my law degree since I apparently am ignorant of basic constitutional law. Thanks for pointing that out random person who got his legal knowledge from Wikipedia. If you actually had a foggy clue what you were talking about you would know that it takes a 2/3 majority for the LEGISLATURE to amend the constitution. when done by popular vote it is a simple majority. Hence the reason all the headlines say prop 8 passed and not that prop 8 failed because it didn’t get a 2/3 majority. As to your stunning legal argument comparing sodomy to a symantec arguement over marriage, the sodomy case you are referring to was struck down on privacy, not equal protection. Privacy rights are clearly implicated when the government tells consenting adults who they may or may not have sex with and how they may or may not do it. This is an argument as to what legal relationships the state will recognize. The federal government has no power to decide that and they have repeatedly stated that, specifically with regards to marriage. Would you like me to now insert the long line of US Supreme Court cases that I base that on or would you rather continue just calling everyone who disagrees with your spoon-fed opinion ignorant? The real problem is people running their mouths without informing themselves and then calling all who disagree names. While this is highly effective in 4th grade it has no merit in a court room. The fact remains that the only possible grounds to challenge prop 8 on are a federal equal protection clause attack. This requires showing discrimination against a suspect class; gender, race, alienage, illegitimacy, or national origin. Homosexuals are not a suspect class and there is miles of case law to prove it. It is also recent case law which means the current court is not likely to overturn it’s own repeated rulings. Maybe you should call up my con law professors and tell them they are ignorant too?
RobertS:
Do you think a brother should have the same right to marry his sister?
Jonnymax:
You sound like an intern.
Look at how similar this is to african-american discrimination during the late 1800s to mid 1900s.
Until the 1960s it was illegal for a black person and a white person to get married, it was called miscegenation.
This began in Nazi Germany (discrimination nation), South Africa during apartheid (discrimination nation) and the US (discrimination nation). The reasoning for this was to maintain “racial purity” and white supremacy.
“In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several verses in the Bible, for example the story of Phinehas and the so-called “curse of Ham”, should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that these verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage.”
Both are allowed today.
“In 1958, the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, at the time a defender of segregation, in a sermon railed against integration, warning that it would lead to miscegenation, which would ‘destroy our [white] race eventually.’.”
“1967, 84 years after Pace v. Alabama in 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that:
Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
The Supreme Court condemned Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law as “designed to maintain White supremacy”.
The spearhead of this movement to legalize black-white marriage was, ironically, the Presbyterians and Roman Catholics. If we follow history it is only a matter of time until same-sex marriage is legal.
Poligamy has the same bearing becuase as you said - If there are two (or three) consenting adults they can do whatever they want behind closed doors.
What I like about this is I see signs saying “Can I vote on your marriage now?” in front of the Mormon temples and to an extent the people and the Gov’t already did when they outlawed poligamy.
I’m sure if you asked many of the protesters they would say poligamy is wrong - just becasue that is how they believe. Like I said this issue comes down to your belief system as gay civil unions have the same legal rights as married spouses.
Also, the attack can’t be on state grounds. The state courts have no power to rule on the state constitution. It trumps all state power. Hence the reason prop 8 is a constitutional amendment. The people that put this thing together knew what they were doing. If a judge were to issue an opinion saying that prop 8 was invalid on state grounds it would simply carry no legal weight and be ignored just as if the governor decided to pass his own legislation to spend money not allocated to him.
Sammy at 2:40 p.m.:
.
2) Explaining the obvious, people predict the future all the time. I predict that if a push a few buttons on my microwave, it will pop my popcorn. My prediction that at least ONE gay person out of many will sue to enforce “fundamental rights” be taught as part of school curriculum if gay marriage is legalized but then not included in the curriculum rests on pretty solid ground. Feel free to disagree.
.
4) No, I do not object to infertile heterosexual couples marrying. Infertile couples marrying in no way harms the institution of marriage.
.
7) You say, “I disagree”, but then you go on to make a comment that does NOT DISAGREE with my statement. Do you agree or disagree with my statement that the “BEST, HEALTHIEST, AND MOST IDEAL HOME” in which to raise children is that home that provides a LOVING MOTHER AND FATHER.” I did not say that children could not be successfully raised in other circumstances, but that there was a BEST circumstance. Agree or Disagree?
.
I DISAGREE with your statement, “There is nothing that two men or two women cannot do as parents that a male/female couple would do in terms of raising a child.” I find this statement laughable, and I’m surprised you have the gall to make it. Suffice it to say that a man cannot be a woman , and a woman cannot be a man. Try as they may.
JakeD:
The reasonable argument for the inability to choose “neither” is in the words “had to” - neither doesn’t answer the question any more than choosing “a turtle” does.
If you did say you’d fornicate with another man rather than your mother, then you did answer the question.
Lunger: You sound like you’ve been practicing for too long,
Ignorance asks: “Do you think a brother should have the same right to marry his sister?”
answer: Only in Arkansas. Why do homophobes always equate homosexuality with things like incest and bestiality? Bigots used to make the same sort of argument against interracial marriage.
Mushrooms Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
What this whole situation boils down to is that you want to impose your beliefs on someone else.
This argument goes both ways since marriage can be taught in schools. It’s written in plain English - look it up under the education code of CA.
Jonnymax:
First of all, we are not in a courtroom. Second, if you are referring to Lawrence v. Texas (because I didn’t) that was, indeed, based on an alleged due process violation (although O’Connor would have preferred using the equal protection clause). So, if you were responding to my post, yes, please give me the names of your alleged Con Law professor(s), as well as the name of the alleged Law School(s) you graduated from and the alleged Year(s), because I suspect that was fairly recently, if at all. Then maybe you can actually read the briefs and posts, above. regarding “revision” vs. “amendment”.
B:
Immutable race is hardly the same as deviant sexual behavior.
Citizens for Putting an End to Nonsense Says:
The words “had to” have no context, which is why I asked OR WHAT? Is someone going to shoot me in the head if I don’t sleep with one of them. Review all the posts before you jump into the briar patch, my friend. I’m still waiting for that promised link.
RobertS:
I am neither a “homophobe” nor do I equate homosexuality with things like incest and bestiality. I am just trying to see where (if at all) you will draw the line. Did you see my comment about immutable race? That makes me a “bigot” now too?
Sammy:
Are you still around?
ignorance says: “it takes a 2/3 majority for the LEGISLATURE to amend the constitution. when done by popular vote it is a simple majority. ”
The facts say: (For some reason) It only takes a majority vote to amend the California Constitution. But if you want to revise the Constitution, first it takes a 2/3 majority of the legislature BEFORE it is put on the ballot. The issue is whether - when you take away the rights of a group of people - whether this requires a revision or just a simple amendment. If the California Supreme Court rules that it requires a revision, then prop 8 is unconstitutional.
JakeD,
That’s your BELIEF that it is deviant sexual behavior, not shared by everyone.
Johnnymax,
.
I don’t think you quite understand the role of the California Supreme Court or the anti-Prop 8 legal argument. The argument that those opposing Prop 8 are making (the primary argument, there are others) is that Proposition 8 is a REVISION to the California Constitution rather than an AMENDMENT. If the California Supreme Court does rule Prop 8 a REVISION, then that ruling will invalidate Prop 8 because the requirements for a revision will not have been completed.
.
However, I wouldn’t worry too much about this if you are a supporter of Prop 8, nor put much faith in it if you oppose Prop 8. The likelihood of the California Supreme Court finding that Prop 8 is a REVISION is EXTREMELY LOW. Courts make rulings based on PRECEDENCE. In the case of Prop 8 the precedence is very clearly on the side of finding that Prop 8 is an amendment, and thus finding Prop 8 vald.
The only initiative in California history that was ruled a REVISION of the state constitution as opposed to an AMENDMENT contained THOUSANDS OF WORDS AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS. Prop 8 contains a MERE 14 OPERABALE WORDS.
.
As to the state court, its exact job is to rule on the meaning of the state constitution. Unfortunately, this activist state court has found a right to gay marriage in our state constitution. Any reasonable person can see that no such right is there. But that is what activist courts do, and why they are so dangerous. It is also why Prop 8 became necessary.
B:
I “believe” that race is immutable too, so?
Jonnymax:
Never mind, I see now you were responding to RobertS (good luck with that one).
The words “had to” don’t need a context. The point is that you are faced with a choice. and a decision has to be made. If it makes you feel any better about your clearly closeted gay tendencies, you may assume a gun to your head.
March against prop 8 tomorrow 430pm
Irvine
Campus and Culver
marching to Alton
LOL “clearly closeted gay tendencies” — didn’t I say I already answered the question?!
Did you watch last week’s CSI? NOT making a decision is a “decision” too ; )
I am a happily married heterosexual lady with a child. I am saddened that the 14th amendment of our constitution can be selective denied to some people simply due to a ‘majority’ vote. We are a REPUBLIC, not a simple majority-rules Democracy. That is what protects the liberties of ALL of us, minority and majority alike. Think of every instance where your particular views or beliefs may not be those of “the majority.” Would you want “them” to deny you based solely on their greater numbers? Voting for trains, or bonds, or non-rights related issues is one thing…yeah, you lost, get over it. But how can anyone in good conscience vote-in a specific rule to our state constitution that denies many the same liberties that all should have? How sad that one’s constitutional rights can be usurped simply by vote. That is why this shall and will be overturned. California cannot make up its own rules if they are against the constitution of the United States.
Yes.
Tina:
Did you vote NO on Prop. 8?
Mariage is not between a Man and A Woman …. Don’t be stupid! Mariage is nothing more than a legal contract that two individuals enter into.
Why do you think that your religious ceremony is not a legal mariage until you sign a mariage license? Because Mariage has nothing to do with God ….. It is a legal contract to merge two individuals assets together.
When people get married you have a preacher….. where is the religion when it comes to the divorce …. no where to be found….. just lawyers dealing with the legal contract of the marriage.
STOP DISCRIMINATING ORANGE COUNTY — FIRST YOU DID IT AGAINST PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE 60S AND 70S— THEN THE HISPANICS IN THE 80S — AND NOW THE GAYS.
YOUR PREACHERS SHOULD BE TEACHING EAQUALITY AND LOVE NOT HATE AND DISCRIMINATION.
Looks like there are many here who would like to take away the rights of gays and their supporters to utilize the court system. I don’t understand how we can allow the majority to take away rights from a group of minorities by a mere 500,000 votes.
John, here are some case laws that you should review:
Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313
(Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 (Livermore).)
(Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 118-119, 36 P. 424.)
Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077 (Raven).)
(Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 (Amador).)
ignorance says: “The likelihood of the California Supreme Court finding that Prop 8 is a REVISION is EXTREMELY LOW.”
the facts say: The CSC has already ruled: “We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,”
The CSC has already ruled that same sex couples have an inherent right under the Constitution to marry. So if you want to change that - THAT is a revision of the Constitution and NOT just an amendment. An amendment is when you just want to add something to the Constitution without changing what it already says or implies. Proposition 8 changes the Constitution to say and imply that gays and lesbians aren’t like other people, and so they don’t have the same rights. That’s a complete revision of a Constitution that previously assumed that we were all equal.
I say that any proposition has a right to be challenged in courts as it relates to the legality of said proposition…based upon both State and Federal law. This situation in some shape or form will eventually be decided by the US Supreme Court.
As far as being established as a Christian Nation…well there is not fact in any early documents that verifies this. In fact the “Treaty of Tripoli” as written by John Adams and approved by the US Senate says otherwise.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion–as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] … (Article 11, ‘Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,’ 1796-1797)
Furthermore, the US Constitution speaks directly to the issue of government and religion.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment)
“The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article VI, Section 3)
For certain God is mentioned and often a Creator, but rarely is Christ mentioned.
I could go on and on, but I need to go to class.
check out this case law:
Raven, 52 Cal. 3d at 350
Its going to happen whether you like it or not. Its going to happen!
Geez,…….got a little pent up anger going there James??
If gays can get married, then why can’t I marry all my friends or marry with my pet dog. Where is the boundary? Love does not equal marriage, that’s what gays fail to understand. Instead marriage is the core of possible reproduction to continue generations. If gay marriage ever becomes OK then I want to marry all of my best friends too.
I am so fed up with the level of homophobic ignorance I’m reading in so many of these comments. Nobody’s threatening a church’s right to not perform same-sex ceremonies. They can do so without losing their tax-exempt status (which is as it should be). The National Pediatrics Society (among others) has found that it doesn’t matter if parents are straight or gay; what matters is the loving environment they create. And, finally, civil unions are not the same thing as marriage. The relationship between civil unions and marriage is eerily similar to the discredited “separate but equal” principle that segregated black and white schools in the 1950s. The U.S. Supreme Court overruled that in 1954 because a constitution (whether federal or state) is supposed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. It is why the court challenges will probably succeed.
Bottom line: Who the hell are any of us to decide who gets to marry? And whose basic civil rights are next?
I really don’t understand how some of you people think. Were you oxygen deprived when you were born? Did the doc accidentally drop you on the floor? We voted, Prop 8 passed, LEAVE IT BE!!!!! And I agree with ocbear, where do you call the line? I love my truck, can I marry my truck? I love my daughter, can I marry my daughter? I love sushi, can I marry sushi (spicy tuna roll)???????? Do you get the point? If gays can marry, then there shouldn’t be any law against anyone marrying more than one person (or anything) at the same time. That would be “unfair”, wouldn’t it?
ignorance says: “I love my truck, can I marry my truck?”
If someone doesn’t know the difference between two consenting adults getting married and having intercourse with a truck - are they even smart enough to vote, let alone get married?
Ignorant RobertS says: “If someone doesn’t know the difference between two consenting adults getting married and having intercourse with a truck - are they even smart enough to vote, let alone get married?”
.
I say, “If someone doesn’t know the difference between two consenting adults performing the sexual act that creates life and two consenting adults performing an act (homosexual anal sex) that is both unhealthy and cannot produce life — are they even smart enought to vote?”
A lot of you OC folks scare me. It is amazing how so many people like to twist the bible and the US Constitution to make either of them fit their own personal view on a topic. All men are created equal, not just straight men! What are you prop 8 supporters afraid off?
John:
Don’t worry about those like RobertS. Their fake outrage covers for their own guilty, sinful behavior and knowledge that “consenting adults” do all manner of evil to themselves and society.
Rick:
I am not “afraid” of anything. What my concern is, however, that the “All men are created equal” argument will be used next by a brother and sister, father and daughter, husband and multiple wives, NAMBLA, etc. If there’s anything you believe I’ve “twisted” about the Bible or the U.S. Constitution, please let me know.