Yes on Prop 8 - no gay marriage

[Mink]

I'm just asking subdjoe......no big deal at all.

I think the texts are deliberately written to confuse.

[subdjoe]

Nov 2, 2008 17:37:27 GMT -5 Mink said:

I'm just asking subdjoe......no big deal at all.

I think the texts are deliberately written to confuse.

You of course are entitled to your opinion. The texts are written to achieve a specific purpose in law. This means that the wording SHOULD be precise. That may mean that there are several clauses in a sentence. It may seem convoluted to some who skim it and don't really read it. But if you take the time to read, maybe a few times, it usually isn't too hard to understand what a bill will do. Yes, it isn't a 25 word subhead or a 30 second sound bite. So what? Part of being a citizen is doing a bit of work so you know what is going on in the government.

[Mink]

I agree and most of the time, it does take more than one attempt in reading just to get the jist of it.

[surefire]

For the record, I voted "No" on Prop 8.

If someone is not hurting others, why should the Government interfere in their private lives?

[saunterelle]

Surefire, I think the defeat of Prop. 8 is caused by Religion. Religion holds us back, stifles freedom, and limits civil rights. Thus, our founding fathers emphasized the separation of church and state.

[subdjoe]

Yeah, "Proclaim liberty throughtout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof" as it says oon the Liberty Bell. Need to take a grinder and get those words off of it. They come from the Bible so obviously they are meant to "hold(s) us back, stifle(s) freedom, and limit(s) civil right(s)"

Tell us how free we are when the athistic left does all it can to stifle free exercise, free expression, free assembly, free thought.

[surefire]

Nov 5, 2008 3:29:20 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Surefire, I think the defeat of Prop. 8 is caused by Religion. Religion holds us back, stifles freedom, and limits civil rights. Thus, our founding fathers emphasized the separation of church and state.

I know many religious people that support gay marriage.


I cannot figure this one out. We live in a tin-foil hat extreme left state, and yet apparently are not supporting a MODERATE-left position.

[subdjoe]

This was "moderate" in the way our gun restrictions are "reasonable". Note that no matter how many restrictions on guns we have, the left always has a few more "reasonable" restrictions in the wings to further erode the RKBA.

Likewise with this. First it was asking for things like being covered by the partners employer supplied health insurance (that is one example, and I do agree that simple things like that are reasonable and needed), and that was all they wanted. Then civil unions, and that was all they wanted. Now marriage, and 'why can't people who love each other get married' and that again will be all they want. Then the next door opens, and we have a whole new civil rights movement asking for polyamorus unions to be recognized and derive all the benefits of the historic and traditional one man and one woman marriage. Next will be polyamourous marriages. All of course touting the reasonableness and claiming discrimination.

Could be that people in this state are getting fed up with the fringe left. And fringe left judges making law from the bench.

[The Big Dog]

Let's look at it from the perspective of the law for a moment.

There was no fundemental or enumerated right for men and women to marry. In overturning the previous will of the voters, the state's Supreme Court essentially made the right up out of thin air and then extended to all persons regardless of sexual preference by declaring that the statement put into the state constitution by the voters, which likewise did not confer a right but only defined what the majority of the voters (over 60%) wanted marriage to be.


Now perhaps it is "fair" that all these marriages are recognized by edict of the court, however, that does not excuse the basic fact that the court bootstrapped a right that did not exist. No matter how right or how wrong it might ultimately be, bootstrapping is not a valid legal argument.

To blame it all on "religion" is both terribly nebulous and horribly bigoted.

[saunterelle]

But BigDog, bootstrapping is not the argument here. Fairness is, and isn't equality for all a virtue America strives for? This is a civil rights issue. How can you be with those who want gay couples to be unequal in the eyes of the law, especially when you admit that it is not fair.

Prop 8's win can be summed up with 2 words: Religion and Fear.

The Mormon Church funded more than 50% of the yes on 8 campaign. They paid for commercials that lied to people. They said gay marriage would be "taught in schools." This is false. Basically, the Church lied to people to scare them into voting yes. It is a tactic that churches have used for thousands of years. They don't unite, they divide. That's why you will never find me joining a church.

[bolverk]

Again with the civil rights issue. Proposition 8 was not defeated, it won with truth and backlash against progressive judges who went against the will of California and did not allow them time to vote and rectify the situation. Not to mention that Marriage is a 1st Amendment issue, not a civil rights issue, marriage licenses violate the free practice clause of the first amendment.

[The Big Dog]

"Fairness" is your argument Saunterelle, which does mean that it is "the" argument. Gay couples are not unequal in the eyes of the law. They have no standing, as per the voters twice.

Let's start by noting that life isn't fair, no matter how much you want to try to make it so. The fact remains that all gay couples in California have all the rights and privileges concerning finances and survivorship available to them already through civil union. The only thing they lack is a government issued "marriage license" that would magically make their unions binding across all fifty states under the full faith and credit clause.

So what this comes down to is that an arguably small minority (the gays) want to force, with the help of their friends, their view of how they want it to be on an arguably overwhelming majority. The majority, even with the infusion of hundreds of thousands of Obama voters in this cycle, has said no. And that, as I pointed out above clearly illustrates just how

The last time I looked our system was still majority, not minority, rules. In fact, the majority has spoken twice now on this issue in very clear and measured terms. So while you are perfectly within your right to piss and moan about unfairness, spread your anti-religion (atheistic, per chance???) dogma and portray it as a somehow a bigoted or "homophobic" stance, the fact remains that the majority has spoken.

Deal with it.