CA's Prop 8, FL's amendment 2 and Arizona's prop 102/ Defining marriage, Surprised this never got mentioned here. Rating Options

[misoshiru]

I voted

Yes - Prop 8
No - Prop 4

are you serious? you really voted yes on prop 8?

[misoshiru]

yeah kris! I think that a lot of the women at Smith are also going to be rallying.


and if you really voted yes for prop 8 tung, fuck you. i've lost all respect.

[sixfive]

Not to say that it's right, but I feel the reason Prop 8 was passed was because the government imposed whatever bill or piece of legislature it was called on the people without their consent before-hand. I think that if they had originally asked the general public to vote on it, prop 8 would not have passed, or whatever the opposite is would have passed.

[*cakedout*]

im not a poli sci major, but wouldnt the passing of prop 8 go against the 14th amendment?

[Reidar]

Not legally, because of how subjective the interpretation is. It's just a dickish move.

[coconutter]

WHY ARE THEY TAKING RIGHTS AWAY FROM CITIZENS

WHAT

THE

tiddly-winks

DAMN YOU GOVERNATOR

[Reidar]

This thing passed, yet Proposition 4 (parental notification for abortion in minors) didn't? How stupid. How is it that California can be so secular on Prop. 4 and so "traditional" on gay marriage?

[xoxo_proud]

I can't believe this didn't pass. I was really shocked.

[*paperplane*]

This thing passed, yet Proposition 4 (parental notification for abortion in minors) didn't? How stupid. How is it that Califonia can be so secular on Prop. 4 and so "traditional" on gay marriage?

Yeah, exactly.

I have a friend who's attributing it to the great graphic design for the yes on 8 campaign. I think he might actually have a point.
Also, of course, the gross mischaracterization of the ramifications of voting for/against prop 8.

[Tung]

Yanlin, I was just kidding. I didn't even vote at all.

[*cakedout*]

Not legally, because of how subjective the interpretation is. It's just a dickish move.

yeah but it was made vague cause the framers couldn't predict every single situation.

[misoshiru]

Yanlin, I was just kidding. I didn't even vote at all.

that's just as bad

[*paperplane*]

well, not quite...

but almost

[Tung]

Hey don't judge me because I chose not to vote.

[Reidar]

yeah but it was made vague cause the framers couldn't predict every single situation.

Yes, hence the interpretation being left up to individual subjectivity.

There are still people who don't know that the three-fifths compromise designated three-fifths of the slave population to be represented in order to balance the north and the south, not that every individual black person is three-fifths a person.

[Joss-eh-lime]

This thing passed, yet Proposition 4 (parental notification for abortion in minors) didn't? How stupid. How is it that Califonia can be so secular on Prop. 4 and so "traditional" on gay marriage?

yeahh i agree with you there.
gay marriage wont physically hurt people, but an abortion will. wtf.

[*cakedout*]

Yes, hence the interpretation being left up to individual subjectivity.

So gays aren't citizens? Is that what Christians think?

[Reidar]

So gays aren't citizens? Is that what Christians think?

The interpretation wouldn't come from who is defined as a citizen. Gay people can still marry - just not with someone of the same sex. By that mere allowance, as useless as the technicality may be in application, you aren't unequivocally denying a group of people "life, liberty, or property", as its worded.

I think proponents of Prop. 8 see it as a semantic deal. They're not trying to bar people from living with one another - hence the whole "civil union" offer - but they want to maintain the word itself. Gay people see this as a matter of principle and want access to the same title as them. That's a legit stance to me, but I don't liken it to the racial severity of the Civil Rights Movement. Not even close.

[*cakedout*]

The interpretation wouldn't come from who is defined as a citizen. Gay people can still marry - just not with someone of the same sex. By that mere allowance, as useless as the technicality may be in application, you aren't unequivocally denying a group of people "life, liberty, or property", as its worded.

I think Christians see it as a semantic deal. They're not trying to bar people from living with one another - hence the whole "civil union" offer - but they want to maintain the word itself. Gay people see this as a matter of principle and want access to the same title as them. That's a legit stance to me, but I don't liken it to the racial severity of the Civil Rights Movement. Not even close.

Alrite, I can agree with that. Although, as you put it, it is a "dick move." I still think Civil Unions are just a pity form of marriage.

[Tung]

did the rally at smith happen?
The one on west hollywood last night was crazy. only one street was supposed to be closed down, but we broke off and headed to sunset blvd and some UCLAers joined us.

f uck UCLAers. us UCDers eat you.

kevin why you so up on this gay marriage thing?
is there something you wanna tell us keviepoo.

[misoshiru]

did the rally at smith happen?
The one on west hollywood last night was crazy. only one street was supposed to be closed down, but we broke off and headed to sunset blvd and some UCLAers joined us.

not sure. i don't go to smith. D:


Civil Union IS a pity form of marriage. It's just telling gay couples that, yeah, we'll let you kind of get married under the name of civil union so you get legal protection, but there's no federal protection to it. And at the same time, we'll deny you a hell of a lot of rights that heterosexual married couples have. So even if you're "married" under the name of Civil Union, it's only a formality.

[TiffanyFactorial]

Many don't realize that being married is to someone is not just label. It is also being recognized by the government; it will allow rights and benefits that a non-married couple wouldn't have. Such as, consent, government benefits, etc. These are only available to spouses, not partners.

i couldn't have said it better myself. i've been trying to stress this with people who have tried to tell me that marriage is defined & there is wiggle room for anything but a man & woman.

we all know that the decision in three states have been thus far approved to ban gay marriages. there is actually a petition going on in california against prop 8. they're trying to overturn it in hopes that if they get 1 million people to sign it, it'll be a ballot measure again in 2012. i could be wrong. i dont know if i'm allowed to post the link or not, so if you're in california, 18+, & against prop 8, ask me for the link for the petition.

[brooklyneast05]

so, is this retroactive? what about all the gay couples already married? are they just all the sudden legally not recognized as married?

[*paperplane*]

If it's retroactive, it will be found unconstitutional.

Let's examine the text of Prop 8:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This italicized statement is the only statement of any worth to this proposition, and upon examining it, it does not say that only a man and a woman shall be granted the right to marry from now on. It says much more than that. It says that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized, meaning those between the same gender are invalid. The problem is that California has already issued marriage licenses to gay couples, and now, according to this proposition, they are invalid. The language is retroactive.

According to U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 10, states cannot create ex post facto laws. Hence, Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will easily be struck down and Scalia will be the first one to strike it down. He'd probably personally shoot the lawyers who drafted this language if he could.

Also, it's not clear this is meant to be an amendment or a revision. Who the hell wrote this piece? Seriously? You couldn't say "adding an amendment" instead of "adding a section thereto"? Haha. Something makes me think the Cali Supreme Court allowed this to go to the vote just to have a little fun. No judge in his right mind would think this proposition was constitutional.

[sixfive]

I ask because I don't know, but was the initial bill/w.e passed constitutional in the first place?