|
|
Post by ferrous on Aug 10, 2008 9:33:49 GMT -5
Only if you are homosexual and/or support same sex marriages. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 25, 2008 11:04:14 GMT -5
I am going to vote yes on 8. I am a backlash voter, and am not voting my beliefs on this one. I am doing it as a protest to laws being made by courts. The courts can not make laws, only establish precedence.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Sept 25, 2008 12:53:25 GMT -5
I am going to vote yes on 8. I am a backlash voter, and am not voting my beliefs on this one. I am doing it as a protest to laws being made by courts. The courts can not make laws, only establish precedence. That's petty of you. Denying someone their rights to send a message to the courts? If 8 passes, what message do you think that sends? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 25, 2008 14:01:36 GMT -5
I am going to vote yes on 8. I am a backlash voter, and am not voting my beliefs on this one. I am doing it as a protest to laws being made by courts. The courts can not make laws, only establish precedence. That's petty of you. Denying someone their rights to send a message to the courts? If 8 passes, what message do you think that sends? No, it was petty of the courts to deny the people what they intended, forcing the issue. I think it is a purely religious matter. And, since the states interfered in that, I am going to give them the only retort I have. A yes on 8 vote. By the way, if it is petty to you, so be it. I really don't care what you think of my decision. If the courts wish to play games, making laws from the bench, then the voters can play hardball, and I will be on the Yes on 8 team. Either that, or they can strike down the law requiring the marriage license, which was intended to prevent interracial marriages. Then, any gay could get married, if they could find a church to perform the service. Until such a time, they can reap the discontent that they sow. |
|
mrbose
Senior Member
Posts: 898
|
Post by mrbose on Sept 27, 2008 14:36:27 GMT -5
Yes on 8
NObama '08 ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by backagain on Oct 16, 2008 17:21:42 GMT -5
Gay people have the same rights as straight people. No need to screw up the marriage laws.
Gay people can get maried to someone of the opposite sex, and be equal. We need Judges
with Common Sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 16, 2008 17:29:17 GMT -5
No, they're gay.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 16, 2008 21:21:29 GMT -5
That's petty of you. Denying someone their rights to send a message to the courts? If 8 passes, what message do you think that sends? There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to marry for homosexuals, or straights for that matter, regardless of what language Jerry Brown gets inserted into the voter pamphlet. Please consult the constitutions of both the United States and the State of California. If you can find a guarantee of such a right I'll happily mail a ten dollar contribution to the Obama 08 campaign. While one might consider Bolverk's point petty, in a purely political sense it is just as sound as you supporting Barack based on some nebulous promise of "change". He is entitled to his opinion. And he is quite correct that the court swept aside the will of over 60% of the voters who passed the ballot measure the court swept aside without any particular basis in law to do so. While I personally don't care much one way or the other about whether homosexual couples can exchange wedding vows with the imprimatur of the state, I object strenuously for the court, any court, to subvert the clearly demonstrated will of the people without firm basis in the law. They largely made it up out of whole cloth. That is wrong, and it is within the right of the people to demostrate to the court through the ballot process just how wrong that decision was. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 16, 2008 21:52:54 GMT -5
i filled out my absentee ballot today and had to read the prop 8 blurb a few times to make sure i had it right. it is very clever how they worded it in a fashion that would seem confusing to the casual voter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Nov 2, 2008 10:56:08 GMT -5
Nothing confusing about who worded the text.
We can thank our Attorney General Jerry Brown for instilling his bent on the wording of Prop 8.
The original title for Prop 8 and the text that will appear as:
Section 1. Title
This measure shall be know and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article 1 of the California Constitution to read:
Sec 7.5. Only marraige between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.
______________________
It appears that Jerry Brown decided to have the wording change to: Prop 8. ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Again, we have legislators, elected officials, and judges manipulating the will of the people and enacting laws and legislations to further promote their own agenda.
Prop 8 has nothing to do with denying anyone their rights and has everything to do with judges legislating from the bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Nov 2, 2008 15:01:28 GMT -5
I don't recall ever seeing the wording to be clear and concise so voters know exactly what they are voting for in any election, no matter who draws it up.
Has anyone seen polling on this prop?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 2, 2008 16:53:44 GMT -5
I don't recall ever seeing the wording to be clear and concise so voters know exactly what they are voting for in any election, no matter who draws it up. Has anyone seen polling on this prop? All they have to do is READ it. That is why the Sec. State of CA sends out that little booklet with the text of the propositions. They really are not all that difficult to understand. And, why worry about the polling on it? The polls can be skewed, and likely are, by how the questions are phrased. I rarely am able to answer polls honestly with the stock answers, and am usually unhappy with how the questions are phrased. Are you so unsure of your own stand that you need to see how others think and then cast your vote with the majority? |
|
