CA Prop 8

[clem21]

100th reply!

Hahahahahaha you suckers have been posting day and night for this and I got it!
I owned all of you. Yay for me!!!

[Rexer25]

100th reply!

Hahahahahaha you suckers have been posting day and night for this and I got it!
I owned all of you. Yay for me!!!

The kid fits in well here, doesn't he?

[minimetoo26]

I like this Clem guy. He thinks like us. Scary.....

[Flybrick]

Regarding the "civil disobedience" angle - ok, fair point. If she's willing to take the consequences, then so be it.

Regarding the 'unjust laws' angle, again, the hypocrisy of the position just screams at me. If the election had gone an alternative way (pun intended), then most posting on this thread would have been fine with it as it suited their viewpoint as would the, apparently, minority side in California who is protesting/looking to have the results overturned.

California voters determined the outcome of this proposition. By what right/thought process/rationalization do the losing side/the majority of posters here claim that the decision should be set aside barring another such election process?

Admittedly, I used generalization referring to the 'left.' In my observations, the most strident political inclination groups that whine/moan the loudest and seek for the court to solve everything are those to the left. Not always, certainly, but most often.

No doubt those on the other side of the political aisle have different observations.

Me? There was an election. The outcome wasn't even that close. Deal with it. Attempt to change a ballot box decision at the next opportunity. Having the court overturn the ballot box is a very scary path to me.

[tlynn78]

I like this Clem guy. He thinks like us. Scary

I was thinking the same. We've created (yet another) monster.

Mini - who is that old child in your avatar?? No was Erin is that old already!


t.

[minimetoo26]

I like this Clem guy. He thinks like us. Scary

I was thinking the same. We've created (yet another) monster.

Mini - who is that old child in your avatar?? No was Erin is that old already!


t.

She's only three, but since she's very tall and thin and has hair to her waist, most people think she's already 5.

I'm the one who is aging rapidly! Ay yi yi!

[gotribego26]

Regarding the "civil disobedience" angle - ok, fair point. If she's willing to take the consequences, then so be it.

Regarding the 'unjust laws' angle, again, the hypocrisy of the position just screams at me. If the election had gone an alternative way (pun intended), then most posting on this thread would have been fine with it as it suited their viewpoint as would the, apparently, minority side in California who is protesting/looking to have the results overturned.

California voters determined the outcome of this proposition. By what right/thought process/rationalization do the losing side/the majority of posters here claim that the decision should be set aside barring another such election process?

Admittedly, I used generalization referring to the 'left.' In my observations, the most strident political inclination groups that whine/moan the loudest and seek for the court to solve everything are those to the left. Not always, certainly, but most often.

No doubt those on the other side of the political aisle have different observations.

Me? There was an election. The outcome wasn't even that close. Deal with it. Attempt to change a ballot box decision at the next opportunity. Having the court overturn the ballot box is a very scary path to me.

I must point out that if you had taken a public vote on Slavery in the 1850's much of the south would have approved it.

Likewise a national referendum on women's suffrage in the late 19th century.

Or Segregation of schools throughout the south in the 1950s.

All examples of laws that were in existence and are now pretty widely believed to be unjust.

I don't know what the future holds for same sex marriages, but the the will of people has often passed unjust laws.

[clem21]

I like this Clem guy. He thinks like us. Scary

I was thinking the same. We've created (yet another) monster.

t.

Oh no.
I was a monster long before I ever got here.

[tlynn78]

All examples of laws that were in existence and are now pretty widely believed to be unjust.

I don't know what the future holds for same sex marriages, but the the will of people has often passed unjust laws

All true. But my opinion is, the way to change it is to work to change the system, change minds, and eventually change the vote. I hate the notion that one penny of my tax dollars goes to pay for late-term abortions for those (hopefully few) women who choose abortion as a means of birth control. I don't intend to refuse to pay taxes in response to that reality.

[gotribego26]

All examples of laws that were in existence and are now pretty widely believed to be unjust.

I don't know what the future holds for same sex marriages, but the the will of people has often passed unjust laws

All true. But my opinion is, the way to change it is to work to change the system, change minds, and eventually change the vote. I hate the notion that one penny of my tax dollars goes to pay for late-term abortions for those (hopefully few) women who choose abortion as a means of birth control. I don't intend to refuse to pay taxes in response to that reality.

If someone is willing to pay the price to practice "civil disobedience" I have no problem with that.

If they are unwilling to pay the price than I don't support them.

I think it can sometimes take protests that rise to this level to change the system.

[Appa23]

Regarding the "civil disobedience" angle - ok, fair point. If she's willing to take the consequences, then so be it.

Regarding the 'unjust laws' angle, again, the hypocrisy of the position just screams at me. If the election had gone an alternative way (pun intended), then most posting on this thread would have been fine with it as it suited their viewpoint as would the, apparently, minority side in California who is protesting/looking to have the results overturned.

California voters determined the outcome of this proposition. By what right/thought process/rationalization do the losing side/the majority of posters here claim that the decision should be set aside barring another such election process?

Admittedly, I used generalization referring to the 'left.' In my observations, the most strident political inclination groups that whine/moan the loudest and seek for the court to solve everything are those to the left. Not always, certainly, but most often.

No doubt those on the other side of the political aisle have different observations.

Me? There was an election. The outcome wasn't even that close. Deal with it. Attempt to change a ballot box decision at the next opportunity. Having the court overturn the ballot box is a very scary path to me.

I must point out that if you had taken a public vote on Slavery in the 1850's much of the south would have approved it.

Likewise a national referendum on women's suffrage in the late 19th century.

Or Segregation of schools throughout the south in the 1950s.

All examples of laws that were in existence and are now pretty widely believed to be unjust.

I don't know what the future holds for same sex marriages, but the the will of people has often passed unjust laws.

"Blacks reject Gay Rights Movement as Equal to Theirs"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

Religion is not the only reason that African-Americans (and a lesser degree Hispanic-Americans) voted in huge numbers to pass this constitutional amendment. There also is the resentment on the part of many voters that the plights arising from immutable race can not be compared to a lifestyle choice. Read and watch the interviews of people who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., and voted in favor amendments outlawing same-sex marriage throughout the country.

[trevor_macfee]

Regarding the "civil disobedience" angle - ok, fair point. If she's willing to take the consequences, then so be it.

Regarding the 'unjust laws' angle, again, the hypocrisy of the position just screams at me. If the election had gone an alternative way (pun intended), then most posting on this thread would have been fine with it as it suited their viewpoint as would the, apparently, minority side in California who is protesting/looking to have the results overturned.

California voters determined the outcome of this proposition. By what right/thought process/rationalization do the losing side/the majority of posters here claim that the decision should be set aside barring another such election process?

Admittedly, I used generalization referring to the 'left.' In my observations, the most strident political inclination groups that whine/moan the loudest and seek for the court to solve everything are those to the left. Not always, certainly, but most often.

No doubt those on the other side of the political aisle have different observations.

Me? There was an election. The outcome wasn't even that close. Deal with it. Attempt to change a ballot box decision at the next opportunity. Having the court overturn the ballot box is a very scary path to me.

I must point out that if you had taken a public vote on Slavery in the 1850's much of the south would have approved it.

Likewise a national referendum on women's suffrage in the late 19th century.

Or Segregation of schools throughout the south in the 1950s.

All examples of laws that were in existence and are now pretty widely believed to be unjust.

I don't know what the future holds for same sex marriages, but the the will of people has often passed unjust laws.

"Blacks reject Gay Rights Movement as Equal to Theirs"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

Religion is not the only reason that African-Americans (and a lesser degree Hispanic-Americans) voted in huge numbers to pass this constitutional amendment. There also is the resentment on the part of many voters that the plights arising from immutable race can not be compared to a lifestyle choice. Read and watch the interviews of people who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., and voted in favor amendments outlawing same-sex marriage throughout the country.

As the one who interjected the MLK quote into this discussion, I guess I should respond . . .

So what.

I was making no argument for the moral equivalence of the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement - in fact I was careful to say that I was not taking a side on Prop 8.

My post, and the other posts regarding Civil Disobedience (if I'm reading them correctly) were only stating that the practice of Civil Disobedience as described and practiced by Thoreau, MLK, Ghandi (and I'll add here an example close to my own heart, the apostles in the early church), et al is an honorable means of advocacy with a long history. One does not have to agree with Melissa Etheridge, or make the leap from the Civil Rights Movement to the Gay Rights Movement, to grasp that.

[silverscreenselect]

Marriage is what it is, and anything that undermines that is bad for society. Many of the other things that undermine marriage have been mentioned throughout this thread, but the existence of several other things that weaken marriage (and thus our society) does not mean that we should encourage one more thing to weaken it even further.

Nothing can undermine my marriage except myself or my wife. Not Britney Spears running off to Las Vegas wtih some nitwit and annulling it two days later. Not Anna Nicole Smith marrying some guy seventy years older than herself to cash in on his money. Not Ellen and Portia or Mr. and Mr. Sulu.

At one time, a lot of people believed that interracial marriage weakened the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage will only be as strong as the two people who are in any particular marriage.

What has weakened the institution of marriage has been the attempt to secularize a religious concept and give it an ever increasing array of rights under federal and state law, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the basic tenets of marriage and then to arbitrarily deny it to certain individuals.

Gays are not looking to be married in the Catholic Church or the Baptist Church or by any particular religion. However, they are looking to have the same rights under the laws of the United States and the State of California as any couple of the opposite sex has.

[Appa23]

Dave:

I did not direct my post to you. Hence, you are not quoted in it. If my response to somone else troubled, then I apologize. I think that you know that I hold you in high esteem. (Plus, I still wear the t-shirt.)

I merely posted a link to an article that I read, and re-counted what I have seen this week (and frankly for many years) as the reaction to the attempt to equate the struggle for equal rights by African-Americans and the Gay Rights movement.

[trevor_macfee]

Dave:

I did not direct my post to you. Hence, you are not quoted in it. If my response to somone else troubled, then I apologize. I think that you know that I hold you in high esteem. (Plus, I still wear the t-shirt.)

I merely posted a link to an article that I read, and re-counted what I have seen this week (and frankly for many years) as the reaction to the attempt to equate the struggle for equal rights by African-Americans and the Gay Rights movement.

Thanks.

Since I did first bring Dr. King into the discussion, I assumed it was at least partially responding to me.

Apparently I assumed incorrectly. If the old saying about assuming is correct, hopefully in this case only the second half applies (the part about ME).

[gotribego26]

Regarding the "civil disobedience" angle - ok, fair point. If she's willing to take the consequences, then so be it.

Regarding the 'unjust laws' angle, again, the hypocrisy of the position just screams at me. If the election had gone an alternative way (pun intended), then most posting on this thread would have been fine with it as it suited their viewpoint as would the, apparently, minority side in California who is protesting/looking to have the results overturned.

California voters determined the outcome of this proposition. By what right/thought process/rationalization do the losing side/the majority of posters here claim that the decision should be set aside barring another such election process?

Admittedly, I used generalization referring to the 'left.' In my observations, the most strident political inclination groups that whine/moan the loudest and seek for the court to solve everything are those to the left. Not always, certainly, but most often.

No doubt those on the other side of the political aisle have different observations.

Me? There was an election. The outcome wasn't even that close. Deal with it. Attempt to change a ballot box decision at the next opportunity. Having the court overturn the ballot box is a very scary path to me.

I must point out that if you had taken a public vote on Slavery in the 1850's much of the south would have approved it.

Likewise a national referendum on women's suffrage in the late 19th century.

Or Segregation of schools throughout the south in the 1950s.

All examples of laws that were in existence and are now pretty widely believed to be unjust.

I don't know what the future holds for same sex marriages, but the the will of people has often passed unjust laws.

"Blacks reject Gay Rights Movement as Equal to Theirs"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

Religion is not the only reason that African-Americans (and a lesser degree Hispanic-Americans) voted in huge numbers to pass this constitutional amendment. There also is the resentment on the part of many voters that the plights arising from immutable race can not be compared to a lifestyle choice. Read and watch the interviews of people who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., and voted in favor amendments outlawing same-sex marriage throughout the country.

I should have been more careful - particularly since it is probably clear I would not have voted for Prop 8 if it was on my ballot (I don't know that I've stated that publicly before).

I was trying to respond to Flybrick's argument that a law that is passed by the people is a just law and needs to be respected. I don't think that is always the case and it is easy to provide historical examples of the popular will eventually turning on an issue.

I beleive this law is unjust - and time will tell if a majority ever agrees with me. For now I agree that it is law - I respect that some may practice civil disobedience to make their case. It is not unjust enough that I would.

[TheCalvinator24]

What has weakened the institution of marriage has been the attempt to secularize a religious concept and give it an ever increasing array of rights under federal and state law, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the basic tenets of marriage

I actually agree with this. Marriage really has no place as a "state" function.

[Bob78164]

Yes, I am proud to live in a state where the citizens have voted to protect the rights of our chickens, but not our gays.

This is not a measure of what I think of gay marriage or this resolution, but I feel I must correct an error in this statement.

Marriage is not a right, PSM.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. In equal protection analysis, it's characterized as a fundamental right, which means that laws or regulations affecting it are subject to strict scrutiny, the most rigorous and least deferential standard of review applied by the courts. --Bob

[Ritterskoop]

All examples of laws that were in existence and are now pretty widely believed to be unjust.

I don't know what the future holds for same sex marriages, but the the will of people has often passed unjust laws

All true. But my opinion is, the way to change it is to work to change the system, change minds, and eventually change the vote. I hate the notion that one penny of my tax dollars goes to pay for late-term abortions for those (hopefully few) women who choose abortion as a means of birth control. I don't intend to refuse to pay taxes in response to that reality.

Not that this illuminates this topic, but late-term abortions are not performed by responsible clinics unless the mother's life is threatened. They know Roe v. Wade, which says after the point of viability (roughly six months), the state has an interest in protecting the fetus.

Partial-birth procedures are performed only when the fetus' head is misshapen due to anencephaly or similar situations, such that the mother would be injured or die if the birth canal is used. This procedure is very rare, and is not used for birth control. Procedures performed for birth control are done at around eight weeks.

I also hesitate about whether public money should pay for this, but I think maybe in the long run we are better off without millions of unwanted children costing us even more money.



As for Prop 8, I would have voted to make same-sex marriages legal. I fail to understand how that would alter the solidity of hetero marriages, and I do see how it would solidify same-sex relationships. Anything that makes it easier to establish healthy long-term relationships is good for the larger group.

[Bob78164]

More than half of U.S. states permit first cousins to marry (35, if I counted correctly -- http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriageli ... cousin.htm). NC doesn't allow double first cousins to marry; some require that you be over a certain age or unable to produce children. Two of my best friends, who also happen to be first cousins, are married to each other.

I don't know if this helps or hurts Jeemie's argument; I just wanted him to know he's wrong about something.

Thanks; I was going to look that up & you saved me the trouble

The other difference is, that if first cousins wish to marry, and live in a state where it's not permitted, they can move to a state where it is. And, if they move back to their original state, or any other of the 50 states, their marriage will be recognized everywhere!

Same with laws governing the permissible age to marry, & age of consent to sexual activity. If a 14, 15, or 16 year old is married, in a state where that is permitted -- regardless of the age of the spouse -- and they move to or visit a state with a higher age of marriage or age of consent -- the marriage is recognized. Even if the younger spouse (or even both spouses!) are under that state's age of sexual consent.

I'm of the opinion that marriage has precious little to do with what (if anything!) goes on in the bedroom, & everything to do with what goes on in the rest of your life. Really! What goes on in the bedroom is: a)private, and b) going to go on regardless of what "The Law" allows (as it has for the whole of human & pre-human history, & a good thing too or we wouldn't be here!)

I need to go do some work but may post the rest of my 2 cents later.

Just to correct the oft-stated but nonetheless incorrect idea that states have to recognize all marriages from other states -- there is a common law exception that no state is required to recognize a marriage that violates a "strong public policy." Many states have included this in their state constitutions, especially recently after the idea of same-sex marriages began being discussed.

So, in order to determine if the marriage of first cousins must be recognized, a court would look at whether the state has a "strong public policy" against such marriages. There was a case out of Louisiana that addressed this issue (interestingly, the lower court also refused to recognize the marriage because the couple were married in Iran, and the court essentially went off on a Pro-America rant.)

If the original marriage occurred in the United States, it's hard for me to see how such a ruling would be consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And if I'm right about that, the Defense of Marriage Act doesn't change the outcome. --Bob

[mom2five]

I've been reading this Prop 8 thread for the past couple of days and even though I don't post often, I feel like adding my pennies to this pot! I don't believe that I will change anyone's opinion but I can hope...

I do live in CA and I voted NO on 8, because I feel that if 2 adults are in love, and they want to make a formal commitment to each other, they should be allowed to do so. I don't have any close personal friends who are gay, I have no deep personal connections to this issue, it just seems like the fair thing to do. I definitely don't think that anyone else's marriage has anything to do with my own!

As for the tax issue that has been mentioned, I have read that a "domestic partnership" does not have the same tax advantage as "married, filing jointly" does. Also, there are other financial advantages that a married couple enjoy, that "partners" don't. (Sorry, I don't know how to add a link to this post!)

I also believe that saying gay marriage is bad or somehow harms other marriages is just another way of spreading hate and prejudice. A couple in love and wanting to get married should be reasons for joy and celebration!

[Bob78164]

Regarding the "civil disobedience" angle - ok, fair point. If she's willing to take the consequences, then so be it.

Regarding the 'unjust laws' angle, again, the hypocrisy of the position just screams at me. If the election had gone an alternative way (pun intended), then most posting on this thread would have been fine with it as it suited their viewpoint as would the, apparently, minority side in California who is protesting/looking to have the results overturned.

California voters determined the outcome of this proposition. By what right/thought process/rationalization do the losing side/the majority of posters here claim that the decision should be set aside barring another such election process?

Admittedly, I used generalization referring to the 'left.' In my observations, the most strident political inclination groups that whine/moan the loudest and seek for the court to solve everything are those to the left. Not always, certainly, but most often.

No doubt those on the other side of the political aisle have different observations.

Me? There was an election. The outcome wasn't even that close. Deal with it. Attempt to change a ballot box decision at the next opportunity. Having the court overturn the ballot box is a very scary path to me.

The democratic process in many states, including California and most famously Virginia, reached the conclusion that interracial marriage should be illegal. That abomination of public policy wasn't fixed by the democratic process. It was fixed by the courts.

To me (and to the California Supreme Court, judging from the portions of its opinion that I read), what just happened is exactly the same. My only qualms about mounting a legal attack against Proposition 8 are practical, not moral -- if it's attacked and survives, the status of gay marriage will be set further back than if we simply stick to the democratic process. --Bob

[Bob78164]

As for the tax issue that has been mentioned, I have read that a "domestic partnership" does not have the same tax advantage as "married, filing jointly" does. Also, there are other financial advantages that a married couple enjoy, that "partners" don't. (Sorry, I don't know how to add a link to this post!)

Registered domestic partners are eligible to file joint California state income tax returns. Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, even legally married same-sex couples are not eligible to file joint federal income tax returns. --Bob

[tlynn78]

I do see how it would solidify same-sex relationships. Anything that makes it easier to establish healthy long-term relationships is good for the larger group.

Working for a judge, I can tell you the institution of marriage is in trouble, and I believe gay partnerships have very little, if anything to do with that fact. That's a whole 'nother issue(s). I do think allowing gays access to legal marriage is necessary to stabilize the families that gay couples are, more and more, beginning, raising, etc. Here in MT, two lesbians made a commitment to one another, they agreed together that one of them should get pregnant, and I believe two children ultimately were born to the couple. The woman who actually carried and birthed the baby eventually 're-thought' her position on homosexuality, ended the relationship, and married a man. She sought sole custody of both kids. That ain't right. Those kids were raised by both women for several years, and now she wants to unilaterally cut them off from her ex-partner. Legal marriages would establish a consistent means for determining custody and visitation of children born/adopted of or to homosexual couples.

t.

[Flybrick]

The democratic process in many states, including California and most famously Virginia, reached the conclusion that interracial marriage should be illegal. That abomination of public policy wasn't fixed by the democratic process. It was fixed by the courts.

To me (and to the California Supreme Court, judging from the portions of its opinion that I read), what just happened is exactly the same. My only qualms about mounting a legal attack against Proposition 8 are practical, not moral -- if it's attacked and survives, the status of gay marriage will be set further back than if we simply stick to the democratic process. --Bob

The democratic process is something to be attacked when you don't like the outcome.

Noted.