Proposition 8- Allowing gay marriage in Califorina

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well, considering I'm the only person in the thread who has said I can't vote on such an issue as I don't have a right to make laws in respect to what people can and can't do yet I am being accused of wanting to make everyone conform to my own religious ideology and a bunch of other nonsense DK has been spewing about me, what my aims are and the psychology of priests I think I am entitled to a little, psychology of my own.

Do you assume the persecution or do you actually think it's happening? I've never said that you were trying to convert everyone. I have said I think it's odd to know you never want to get laid and spend the rest of your life married to a pretend space god, but not that you were trying to get everyone else to subscribe to that insanity. In fact, I've said several times that some of the best people I've ever known were catholic priests, but reality is clearly not an issue in our ongoing war of words, and that observation certainly doesn't extend to you.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you trying to change his mind? If he has his convictions, that's his choice, who cares.

No one is trying to chnge his mind. But, you seriously want to sit on your side of the computer screen and tell me that people who think that way aren't a problem, mere hours after my rights have been taken away? Sometimes, man, I'm truly astounded by you.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Maybe these God-given "rights" were not given to everyone?

God was not asked. People were asked; and they have decided that some people are not worthy of their respect or equality. Cheers to your god for that. It now seems this is perhaps the best,most intelligent post in this entire thread.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Which is rather odd since California majority voted democrat.

They may have voted Democrat, but they're using their religious views and/or outright intolerance of homosexuality to deny equality.

I read a quote yesterday, it was from a 20 year old black college student,"I voted for Obama and I voted for Prop 8, because the bible says man and woman."

Originally posted by Devil King

No one is trying to chnge his mind. But, you seriously want to sit on your side of the computer screen and tell me that people who think that way aren't a problem, mere hours after my rights have been taken away? Sometimes, man, I'm truly astounded by you.

Some think that America just proved last night that anyone, regardless of background can reach any goal. That is, unless you're a f****t, it seems 'you' have become America's new "n####r", congratulations.

On that note, as a married heterosexual, I do apologize for the turd-sandwich just shoved down your throat.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Which is rather odd since California majority voted democrat.

Originally posted by Robtard
Some think that America just proved last night that anyone, regardless of background can reach any goal. That is, unless you're a f****t, it seems 'you' have become America's new "n####r", congratulations.

Thanks. Actually, thanks for not being one of them.

California voted for Obama, but prop 8 did not pass? Looks like we are still far away from real freedom.

Well, it's pretty much official now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures

the previous marriages will remain valid. It also appears other states will consider a same proposal. We'll see how the new president will handle this situation.

IMO..drop the word marriage and just call it "civil unions". Marriage for some citizens...Civil Unions for other citizens. I know it's just playing with words...but hey! Politicians and Lawyers do it all the time.

Well, see how it goes from here..

Considering Obama isn't really against it and just used his religious convictions as a cover for political reasons, he'll have to wait until he wins his second term to openly say "let the homos have equality."

Let's face it, if Obama had stated he wasn't against gay-marriage, he NEVER would have won.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Well, it's pretty much official now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures

the previous marriages will remain valid. It also appears other states will consider a same proposal. We'll see how the new president will handle this situation.

IMO..drop the word marriage and just call it "civil unions". Marriage for some citizens...Civil Unions for other citizens. I know it's just playing with words...but hey! Politicians and Lawyers do it all the time.

Well, see how it goes from here..

The past century has been a story of nothing but advance for homosexual equality. This is a hiccough; history marches on. It will seem trivial in retrospect; the attainment of equality will go on.

I don't know why, but I just made this.

Funny; I mean that. But considering America just elected a black president, yet something like Prop 8 is deemed fair, it's also quit sad.

Doubly funny, the Balrog is "flaming" and Gandalf is a gay, the self-loathing homo.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The past century has been a story of nothing but advance for homosexual equality. This is a hiccough; history marches on. It will seem trivial in retrospect; the attainment of equality will go on.

That's wrong.

But it's dying. Year by year, more pople are accepting, less are intolerant.

You look at one particular area, you might see bad news,. But you look at the whole thing in context of changing cultural attitudes- and it is nothing but victory for equality.

This is just one state in one country, wedded to the seductive (but ultimately empty) premise of a 'seperate but equal;' idea of civil unions vs. marriage. This is much better than the times when virtually all countries were against it on grounds that all gays were abominations that need to burn in hell. Intsead, what we see are majot western countries not only decriminaoising homosexuality over the last century, but giving mroe and more rights until we have several now that allow full and unrestricted guay marriages.

Like I say- this is a blip. In the end, it won't amount to anything significant, long-term. Equality is, simply, going to win.

Originally posted by Robtard
Funny; I mean that. But considering America just elected a black president, yet something like Prop 8 is deemed fair, it's also quit sad.

Doubly funny, the Balrog is "flaming" and Gandalf is a gay, the self-loathing homo.

Yeah, it has so many meanings, man. Damn, I should have been like a political . . . um . . . artist guy or something. What is it? A uh, political satirist.

edit

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Like I say- this is a blip. In the end, it won't amount to anything significant, long-term. Equality is, simply, going to win.

But it isn't going to just happen as a matter of course. It isn't the social version of trickle down economics. It has to be fought for and it has to be accepted, not just tolerated because there's a law. All those examples you mention didn't occur because there was a flash of understanding or an epiphany. It happened because it was fought for by the gay people in those countries. So that cultural acceptance BigRed mentioned happens when actions like Prop 8 are defeated and the rights of people are upheld. These groups spent 25 million dollars to revoke those rights, and nearly as much was spent to defend them. That's a lot of hate to fight, irrational hate and resentment. It may be one law in one state in one country across one ocean from you, but it's my home. It's the home of a lot of other gay people. I think the fact that you live in a place that, as a country, has made efforts to recognize the relationships of homosexuals may explain the perspective. However, I do disagree that equality will win simply because it's the most logical end result. We're talking about a country where it took hundreds of years to get rid of slavery. Logic doesn't always come quickly to us.

It's also not just going to happen when people (we have some in here) arrogantly declare they have no ill will towards homosexuals and they think homosexuals should have equality, yet they supported Prop 8 which FACTUALLY did away with equality.

The very least those haters could do is have the ****ing minerals to just state their true feelings, while they're oppressing people.

Originally posted by Devil King
some of the best people I've ever known were catholic priests, but reality is clearly not an issue in our ongoing war of words, and that observation certainly doesn't extend to you

Well, I still like you anyway. 🙂

"Analysis: Marriage Might Survive Ban's Passage" Peter DelVecchio

. . . In trying to change the constitution, Prop. 8 faces a problem its predecessor didn't: California law distinguishes between a constitutional "revision" and a constitutional "amendment." Under California Supreme Court precedent, a revision is a measure that would "substantially alter the [state's] basic governmental framework." An amendment is any less sweeping change.

Revision initiatives can only be put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the legislature or by a constitutional convention. Amendment initiatives simply require a certain number of voters' signatures. It's just plain common sense: Big changes should be harder to make than little ones. Prop. 8 is the result of a signature drive, not a two-thirds legislative vote or a constitutional convention. So, if Prop. 8 passes, but the court then decides that banning same-sex marriage would be a "revision" to the constitution, then Prop. 8 would not have properly qualified for the ballot, and its passage would be nullified.

So how likely is it that Prop. 8 will be struck down if it passes?

. . . Look at it this way: Would a constitutional provision barring African-Americans, and no one else, from marrying be a big deal, i.e., a revision, or just an amendment? How about one taking away women's right to vote? Jews' right to worship? Prop. 8 is indistinguishable from each of these examples in the eyes of the law because all would involve depriving a suspect class of a fundamental right. Can any of these truly be matters the framers of the California Constitution intended to leave to the whim of 50 percent of the voters plus one?

In its [2008-MAY] marriage decision, a majority of the California Supreme Court wrote this:

"[T]he California Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage."

My bet is that the court that penned these ringing words will not, at the end of the day, permit our rights, so recently recognized, so hard won, to be so easily, so arbitrarily and, most significantly, so unconstitutionally snatched away.