Prop H8 mostly upheld

[Autodidact]

I'm not stupid or mean. I'm just saying that gay people have the same rights as straight people.

Would you be satisfied with equal rights to marry another woman?

So it's "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", unless you're gay and then you get special treatment?

Yeah, I feel real special as a second class citizen.

Here, let's try a metaphor: What are those mixed race couples complaining about? They have the same right to marry a person of their own race as anyone else? They're trying to change marriage to include different races!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm not stupid or mean.

Well, that's still to be determined.

I'm just saying that gay people have the same rights as straight people.

I stand corrected. It would appear that "stupid" is forging into the lead.

So it's "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", unless you're gay and then you get special treatment?

Well, "stupid" is in the home stretch, and on the rail.

 

[Weddy]

Would you be satisfied with equal rights to marry another woman?

Yeah, I feel real special as a second class citizen.

Here, let's try a metaphor: What are those mixed race couples complaining about? They have the same right to marry a person of their own race as anyone else? They're trying to change marriage to include different races!

I don't see anything wrong with people marrying someone of another race. What does that have to do with gay rights though?

 

[Nanda]

I don't see anything wrong with people marrying someone of another race. What does that have to do with gay rights though?

It should be pretty obvious - we don't see a problem with people of the same sex marrying each other.

 

[McBell]

 

[Watchmen]

Can we at least try to debate this with some civility and leave out the name calling?

 

[Weddy]

Well, that's still to be determined.


I stand corrected. It would appear that "stupid" is forging into the lead.



Well, "stupid" is in the home stretch, and on the rail.

I think it's pretty childish to call someone stupid because they have a different opinion than you. That just shows that you can't back up your beliefs. "Gee, I can't think of what to say so I'll just say she's stupid."

 

[Reverend Rick]

I will keep on saying it is high time we keep government out of the marriage business.

If I am correct, the word "marriage" is causing the problem in California. If the state gave everyone a "Civil Union" Same sex couples would have to be included.

Please understand that I am addressing the legal aspects in California, because they already have anti-discriminatory laws that are suppose to protect everyone.

If marriages where left up to churches, everyone could be married as well. :rainbow1:

 

[McBell]

I think it's pretty childish to call someone stupid because they have a different opinion than you. That just shows that you can't back up your beliefs. "Gee, I can't think of what to say so I'll just say she's stupid."

Fatihah, is that you?

 

[Valjean]

Interesting that Iowa is now more progressive than California.

In my opinion the problem lies in the California iniative process, which allows a simple majority of citizens to create new law, as long as it doesn't violate the constitution (in which case, if I understand correctly, a 2/3rds majority of the legisature would be required).
This opens the door to the possibility of the majority voting away the civil rights of a minority.

As I understand it, the vote hinged on weather the constitution's equal protection clause applied to Prop 8. Cth court decided it didn't.

California's initiative process is flawed and in need of reform. I've heard Gov. Schwartzenegger (sp?) is proposing to revoke or, at least, modify it.

 

[gnomon]

I don't see anything wrong with people marrying someone of another race. What does that have to do with gay rights though?

Because homosexuals just are.

It's not a case of choosing, such as choosing to believe in a religion that persecutes homosexuals, for homosexuals just are. Just like skin color just is. Just like my heterosexuality just is. I did not choose to salivate over women. I just do.

They are being denied rights solely for who they are. There are other people as well who are denied their rights as well because of they are in regards to the marriage debate.

I would bring up that latter point again but considering I've already done so with pretty much no response from religious believers who dislike homosexuality I've come to the conclusion that such people lack the intellectual capacity to understand.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Too many personal attacks. I'm out of here!

 

[Watchmen]

I will keep on saying it is high time we keep government out of the marriage business.

If I am correct, the word "marriage" is causing the problem in California. If the state gave everyone a "Civil Union" Same sex couples would have to be included.

Please understand that I am addressing the legal aspects in California, because they already have anti-discriminatory laws that are suppose to protect everyone.

If marriages where left up to churches, everyone could be married as well. :rainbow1:

Addressing the legal aspects of California, that state already provides for same sex domestic partners (civil unions) with the same state rights as marriage. However, we all know that separate is not equal.

 

[Weddy]

Fatihah, is that you?

Nope. Isn't that some Islamic prayer?

 

[J Bryson]

I no longer recognize the validity of the marriages of anyone appointed to the California Supreme Court.

 

[gnomon]

Interesting that Iowa is now more progressive than California.

In my opinion the problem lies in the California iniative process, which allows a simple majority of citizens to create new law, as long as it doesn't violate the constitution (in which case, if I understand correctly, a 2/3rds majority of the legisature would be required).
This opens the door to the possibility of the majority voting away the civil rights of a minority.

As I understand it, the vote hinged on weather the constitution's equal protection clause applied to Prop 8. Cth court decided it didn't.

California's initiative process is flawed and in need of reform. I've heard Gov. Schwartzenegger (sp?) is proposing to revoke or, at least, modify it.

That's what Watchmen said as well and I agree. The California system of direct democracy has some serious problems.

I've even come across a couple of reports this year with talk of a new state constitution coming under serious discussion.

 

[Watchmen]

As I understand it, the vote hinged on weather the constitution's equal protection clause applied to Prop 8. Cth court decided it didn't.

No. The vote hinged on whether Prop 8 amended or revised the California constitution.

 

[Nanda]

I no longer recognize the validity of the marriages of anyone appointed to the California Supreme Court.

Heh. I've decided I no longer recognize the validity of anyone's marriage.

 

[McBell]

I will keep on saying it is high time we keep government out of the marriage business.

If I am correct, the word "marriage" is causing the problem in California. If the state gave everyone a "Civil Union" Same sex couples would have to be included.

Please understand that I am addressing the legal aspects in California, because they already have anti-discriminatory laws that are suppose to protect everyone.

If marriages where left up to churches, everyone could be married as well. :rainbow1:

I agree.
Let us completely remove the word 'marriage' from the legal books completely.
Let the churches have the word.

Strip the word 'marriage' of any and all legality.
Make the legal contract currently known as marriage be called a 'Civil Union'.

That way the churches get to hold onto their hollow claims to the word marriage, and same sex couples are no longer discriminated against.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Addressing the legal aspects of California, that state already provides for same sex domestic partners (civil unions) with the same state rights as marriage. However, we all know that separate is not equal.

I never said separate was equal. Reading is fundamental. The state should give everyone a civil union and leave marriage up to the churches.