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

[brooklyneast05]

speaking of constitutional, i don't understand how NOT allowing the marriage is constitutional doesn't the constitution grant equality?

[sixfive]

Some would argue that the constitution is absolute, some would argue that it's a guideline. If not specifically stated, then it's up to interpretation.

[*paperplane*]

If it were too specific it wouldn't have lasted this long. But that's why it's important to have a balanced supreme court of conservative and liberal judges (in a strict/more malleable constitution sense).

I don't think it's accurate to say that it grants equality, so much as justice or fairness. If it were a matter of equality, there would not be such widespread fear of socialism.

Steven, if I understand what you're asking, no. At least not by the California constitution, which is why in May gay marriage became legal, because the California supreme court overruled the previous statute effectively banning gay marriage. That's why this time they're trying to revise the state constitution against it.

I don't like the idea of an American constitution as something that is able to be amended to restrict non-harmful actions, but of course it wouldn't be the first time. As it is, I don't think it would be ok if this weren't so much a matter of semantics. I think people are concerned that it could be considered discrimination if religious leaders refused to marry a same sex couple. I have no doubt that there are other people who are able to perform marriage ceremonies who would not be opposed.

Anyway, it's of course complicated, but I do honestly think that ultimately these gay marriage bans will be considered unconstitutional discrimination. Wishful thinking, possibly, but if I'm wrong, I think that marriage and civil unions will have to become completely separate entities, as the current practice is dangerously mixing government and religion. (After all, saying "why can't gay people just get a civil union" is an awful lot like saying "why can't the black people just drink from other water fountain.")

[*cakedout*]

speaking of constitutional, i don't understand how NOT allowing the marriage is constitutional doesn't the constitution grant equality?

i just argued this with Reidar. Basically, gays can marry....just not with other gays, so "technically" aren't denying them the same rights as others. As for the legal cases, civil unions are offered.

[brooklyneast05]

oh, hmmmm. well, that's fucked up. especially since from what i can tell civil union =/= marriage, since one doesn't seem to be recognized by the federal government and one does.

[*paperplane*]

i just argued this with Reidar. Basically, gays can marry....just not with other gays, so "technically" aren't denying them the same rights as others. As for the legal cases, civil unions are offered.

But it doesn't matter if civil unions are offered if they aren't treated like marriage.

“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

This would render civil unions completely useless, insofar as it would disallow domestic partners (homosexual or even heterosexual) from having the same rights that a married couple would.

[Reidar]

i just argued this with Reidar. Basically, gays can marry....just not with other gays, so "technically" aren't denying them the same rights as others.

Yes, because then you're not categorizing by a group of people, but rather, the action itself. A straight person couldn't marry another of the same gender anymore than a gay person.

Obviously, that's not fair at all (who would want to marry oppositely of their preference?), but unconstitutional it isn't.

[*cakedout*]

But it doesn't matter if civil unions are offered if they aren't treated like marriage.
This would render civil unions completely useless, insofar as it would disallow domestic partners (homosexual or even heterosexual) from having the same rights that a married couple would.

lol no shit, but its like saying, No you cant have some of the cake, but here, the dog food is all yours.

[brooklyneast05]

[*paperplane*]

That's not my point, though. Heterosexual domestic partnerships would also be made virtually useless, and I would imagine that homophobes would have no problem seeing that as a matter of taking away people's rights. it would cause problems, regardless.

[coconutter]

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

First of all, if you think not giving people rights won't hurt them you're sadly SADLY mistaken. How did your ancestors feel when they weren't given rights? You think they weren't hurt?


I know you said physically but you're acting like it won't hurt them at all, like it doesn't MEAN anything to have rights. That's the attitude you come off as having based on your other posts.

Second of all, most of the babies aborted don't have a nervous system yet, so they don't feel shit. The proposition wasn't even about the act of abortion, it was about notifying parents which is almost irrelevant.

Seriously, stop dehumanizing other people. That is the most fucking ridiculous statement I've ever EVER heard.

[dafto]

1. The marriages are definitely retroactive as the idiots who wrote prop 8 didn't define that portion, therefore couples are protected by the grandfather clause.

2. It is definitely unconstitutional, as writing discrimination into the constitution, the constitution is designed to preotect rights, how can taking away and completely banning a group of people of rights be considered constitutional?

3. The gay rights movement is just as valid and important as any other because in the end we're all human and when has it ever been okay to dehumanize someone?

4. Saying that gay people can still marry but not people of the same sex makes no sense. That's like saying arranged marriages are cool bc hey at least you're getting married right?

Its about being treated fairly, everyone in life wants a chance to live the life they choose, civil unions don't provide the same protection nor the same rights under the law that marriage does.

&last time I checked the church is not supposed to have anything to do with politics or law, the fact this passed based on that alone is ridiculous.


But whatevs, many lawsuits and appeals have been filed and the fight for gay rights will not stop until a fair resolution is met, regardless of what all these over zealous bible thumpers have to say.

[Reidar]

The proposition wasn't even about the act of abortion, it was about notifying parents which is almost irrelevant.

This should be irrelevant in regards to being common sense, but it isn't. The parents of a minor should be notified of what's going on with their kid because of where the burden of responsibility lies.

2. It is definitely unconstitutional, as writing discrimination into the constitution, the constitution is designed to preotect rights, how can taking away and completely banning a group of people of rights be considered constitutional?

No, it isn't. The law would bar a specific action that a group of people would just so happen to be inclined to - not the people as the component, themselves.

It's backwards and unfair, in my opinion, but not in constitutional violation.

3. The gay rights movement is just as valid and important as any other because in the end we're all human and when has it ever been okay to dehumanize someone?

As valid? Yes. As important? It's a defining issue for this era, but somehow, I think of mob lynchings and public segregation to be more grave situations than marriage rights.

[*cakedout*]

this arguement is useless, it will be legalized within the next 10 years, seeing as how as generations progress, americans tend to be more lenient toward gays.

[misoshiru]

the governator opposes prop 8

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...d=moreheadlines

[vogueXdirge]

I don't know why people can't just live and let live.

If I marry another man, its no one else's business but my own.

[NoSex]

the thing is, we don't all believe in the same thing, thus one shouldn't thrust their belief on someone that differs from theirs just because of the fact that they believe that their morals are higher.

not a functional principle: consider, the case of murder. there are certainly people who have, in specific instances, believed their murderous behavior to be perfectly justified & moral... given your stance, who is to tell them that their behavior is wrong?

[*cakedout*]

it's the government that tells us if ones behavior is right or wrong

if the government told you to kill your parents, would you?

[*cakedout*]

If i'm an extremists sure, but is that what the u.s. government is telling us to do? no.

Such hypothetical situation is not really valid.

thats very subjective, are we not kill civilians now?

[Tung]

lmao @ cakeedout hellaaa proottecctivee ovv gayy RIGhhtzz...

cakeedoutt cummm outyya of datt clossett alreaddyy sonn sonn..

[NoSex]

lmao @ cakeedout hellaaa proottecctivee ovv gayy RIGhhtzz...

cakeedoutt cummm outyya of datt clossett alreaddyy sonn sonn..

omg you're so unfunny.

[*cakedout*]

Well, I don't know about you but i'm not killing anybody, parents or civilians.

ever bought jewelry? lol probably funded a war right now

Of course the government can not dictate every single factor and determine whether it is right or wrong. However, with America being a melting pot of not only races but also religions; along with that we differ in many morals and values. the government is the one somewhat playing mediator and setting up laws that ensures that something does not violate our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

like 90% of this paragraph is irrelevant, you coulda just said we vote on whats right

Now comes the fact that a government will allow the passing of prop 8 suppresses the unalianable rights that was written in the Constitution and guaranteed to every single American citizen; just because of the fact that 52% of californians find it morally wrong, though not the only reason but the most prominent.

lol is there even a point in here or just a bunch of sentences?

[*cakedout*]

wow, harsh.

what's irelevant is you're rebuttal.
You ask a hypothetical situation, if the government told me to kill my parents, would i? I said if i, perhaps, was an extremist then there would be a high probability that i would.

Then you switched it to civilians, and i said that i, personally, have not killed any; Now you're asking a completely irrelevant question to gay marriage about whether i have bought jewelry because it facilitates the war on terror?
Yes, apparently you don't have the ability to grasp it.

lol look at you take everything so personal, here ill be nicer.

since you completely see my point in that your faith in the government is too heavily favored(yes this is an opinion) ill be more literal

you claim makes it seem like the government acts as god. with my response, im simply saying that just because the government says its right, doesn't mean it is. which is then why i asked if you would kill your parents if the government told you to. although you said no, i brought upon another point that most people are indirectly supporting war without even knowing. and last of all, no you had no real point, you just stated a buncha facts that everyone already knows.


"Now comes the fact that a government will allow the passing of prop 8 suppresses the unalianable rights that was written in the Constitution and guaranteed to every single American citizen; just because of the fact that 52% of californians find it morally wrong, though not the only reason but the most prominent."

"our" government
its also "unalienable"


and plz explain this

just because of the fact that 52% of californians find it morally wrong, though not the only reason but the most prominent.

wasnt a complete sentence so i had no idea where you are going with that

[*Janette*]

Pretty much this.

[NoSex]

Pretty much this.

word.