It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Californias Proposition 8

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I will be voting NO on Prop 8. I am in California.

In fact, later this week I will be "protesting" at a few busy intersections.

And before you accuse this of being a gay parade, you should know we are going to the same intersections the Yes on Prop 8 "protesters" were at a week before


I am voting NO on Prop 8 mostly for two reasons:

1) If this gets passed then it revokes the Marriage of couples that are already married. That is ridiculous!!

2) I believe in Equality.


I applaud you for your activism. But what if the people voted for same sex marriage and then judges overturned that decision? Its all about perspective. That is why its so important for people to vote and the have the vote mean anything otherwise we are all just wasting our time and letting the PTB run us.




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by k-string
Democracy isn't a tool for group A to take away rights from group B.

That's why we have courts to overturn the ignorant unwashed masses. Democratic votes should never be used to deny rights, especially against a certain group. That is known as discrimination.


I am getting tired so this will be my last post of the night. You could argue based on your views that forcing people to accept a practice or belief against their own beliefs is wrong. That siding with one group over another is discrimination.

So you have a double-edged sword here.

Therefore, the people decide what to do and live with the consequences.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
reply to post by gramercy
 


Our elected officials? Um, the judges are appointed. You had no say in the matter. And this nation has become a "christian nation"? Do you not know that this country was FOUNDED with Christianity being the beliefs of the vast majority of the people?? This is equivocal to moving to Iran and saying what a "Muslim" country this has become.

Like I said, I am not saying that it is fair for the gays. It is not. I simply stated that I voted Yes on 8 because I believe that the people should decide what is best for them. NOT JUDGES.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by SuperSecretSquirrel]


Do you not realize the absurdity of what you've just said? You just said that people should decide what is best for them. So this should only apply to a large enough group who think the same thing is best for anyone who may or may not agree? By the way this is definitely comparable to slavery and the civil rights movement. There were a large group of people then who didn't believe that black people should have rights. In your mind a large enough group filled with ignorance and hate should decide what is best for the whole.

Ultimately, if you are a true American, this should be a no brainer. Removing the rights of anyone, NO MATTER IF YOU AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT is unconstitutional and unamerican. I am not even going to say anything about all the illegitimate reasons that these people come up with out of fear hate and ignorance, because none of them are valid.

And, by the way, our country was not originally a Christian nation. In fact, many of the people who founded the country were freemasons. Some did belong to the Abrahamic faith, but most were very much against organized religion. These days, we have a president who told the nation that God wanted him to run for office. (thankfully not for much longer though.)



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I got no problem with same sex marriage. It's between the people involved. I don't care if they are male/male, male/female, or female/female. It's not my business to tell someone else what to do with their lives. Equal rights for all should mean equal rights for all, gay straight, bi, trans, no difference. I guess I'm just not that into telling other people who they should or should not be with. I certainly do not want the government defining what marriage should be for me. What next? They government decides who marries who? I got news for them. No on 8. It will merely be overturned in a few years if it does win anyhow. Let the gays be together and be happy. It's no skin off anyone else's back, in reality.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperSecretSquirrel
 


Indeed it is relative.

Don't forget the classical position that was The Government is here to protect the minority from the majority.

Not that I entirely agree with that, but it illustrates that people switch between the two positions when it suits them best.

As for what was voted in favor of. Prior to California voting against it, was California voting for it. Back and forth, back and forth. The aftermath of which is that gay couples that were legally married have to have their marriages legally revoked and unrecognized because of this. It's not just about future marriages. In all fairness, it's also about the existing ones.

I believe in the Public and I believe in Popular Vote, so I am somewhat torn here. However, above all else I believe in Equality. My stance mostly reflects that belief.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperSecretSquirrel
 





It was overturned by judges. I am simply supporting the voters that have already spoken and are now forced to speak again on the same issue.


This argument for prop 8 is a valid one. However will you support any proposition that attempts to ammend the Constitution if 51% of the people previously got together to pass legislation later found to be unconstitutional? This is the case with this proposition and proposition 22.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by SuperSecretSquirrel
 





It was overturned by judges. I am simply supporting the voters that have already spoken and are now forced to speak again on the same issue.


This argument for prop 8 is a valid one.


It is a valid argument. BUT it is also a valid argument against Prop 8.

California voters have voted in support of gay marriage before! The same issue gets brought up and up and up. The outcome of the popular vote is bound to change.

If we allow it to keep getting brought up then we should expect it will sometimes pass and sometimes won't.

We need to decide as a society one way or the other. I for one believe in Equality for All. I am in favor of gay marriage.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I'm voting Yes on Prop 8,this issue was already voted on and it lost,so why beat a dead horse,deal with it the majority has spoken



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Oldtimer2
 


And prior to that the majority was in favor of gay marriage. You have no point. Deal with it.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperSecretSquirrel
 



Two points:


1.) In a healthy Society, the majority NEVER "has the right" to impinge or curtail the rights of the minority, unless such restrictions can be shown(proven) to be in response to an immediate threat.



As much as those in favor of Proposition 8 would like the electorate to believe that "the judges voided their vote", the TRUTH is that the California Supreme court merely recognized the FACT that:


The basic Rights granted under the Constitution of the State of California apply to ALL its citizens, Equally, UNDER THE LAW!, and that no subsequent plebliscite (vote) based upon the state's Constitution can be allowed to Supercede the the Constitution as the basis for the law.


In essence, the judges did not void the vote that passed Proposition 22 (which "out-lawed same-sex marriages); the justices were actually Upholding the principles previously set forth, and approved by the citizens of the State, as the basis for All laws to be enforced within the State.



The arguement that the Justices somehow "dissed" the voters is nothing but a self-delusional smoke-screen, put up as a convenient cover for those who are too ashamed of themselves to admit thier rabid homophobia.





2.) IF Propsition 8 is allowed to pass, it will establish, as fundamental law, the State's right to deny fundamental civil rights to ANY recognizeable group, without the burden of cause.


If you can deny same-sex couples the right to mariage, and cite authority to do so under the Constitution, the legal precedent is then set for denying Any Other Civil Right to Any Other Collection of Citizens Identifiable as having a distinguishing Commonality!.


Think about that!



Today we deny the right to marriage for same-sex couples.


Tomorrow, we may deny the right to free assembly to Muslims.


Next week, we deny the right to privacy to Christians.


Next year, the Jews are back in the camps.




Is this the direction we want for our Society?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Oldtimer2
 


And prior to that the majority was in favor of gay marriage. You have no point. Deal with it.
Prior to what? ,there was an initiative on the ballot and was voted down,please don't try to skew history to form your opinion,it doesn't fair well



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I think you guys are all looking at this issue wrong. "Marriage" is a religious sacrament and thus should not be recognized by the government at all. Baptism is another religious sacrament, should government recognize that and give benefits as well? The government should not even use the term marriage. Under law, a marriage is considered a union between two parties. Gays should have the same right, to a "union between two parties". Calling it marriage is an affront to religious types.

The appropriate constitutional solution should be to strike the term "marriage" from all official docs and any joining of two persons in the eyes of the law should be considered a union. This would give gays the same rights as a conventional "married" couple and should alleviate the issue in the eyes of all who are not doing this just to slap religious types in the face.

Comments?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I do not live in California, but I still have something to say on this subject.

Firstly, discrimination with respect to rights is and should be against the principles this country was founded on. That's the very reason we have a Republic as opposed to a pure Democracy. A Democracy has been likened to two wolves and a sheep voting on what (who) to have for dinner. A Democratic Republic has been likened to the same situation, except the voters cannot eat each other by law. A little fairer situation, especially for the sheep. The sheep has a right to live past dinnertime.

Marriage, however, is not an enumerated right. It is a ritual that is practiced by many religions to consummate a contract between a man and a woman. Over time, it has evolved beyond the original definition in order to protect those engaged in a monogamous union. That's why we have 'common-law' marriages recognized by our government and society. In short, marriage is both a religious ritual and a social contract between two individuals, recognized by the government as legally valid.

There is no requirement in an state to undergo a religious ritual to be considered married. A marriage as a legal contract may be executed by a Justice of the Peace, a ship captain, or an ordained minister of any faith. It consists of a social ceremony in which two individuals make an open and forthright pledge to each other to live monogamously and to combine their property to act as a single unit throughout their lives.

This legal pledge is not absolute, however. A husband who commits a crime does not automatically make his wife responsible for his actions. A wife who takes a job is not legally required to give her husband an equal part of her pay. Adultery, which is considered an absolute breach of the marriage contract, does not carry with it an penalties other than the ability to break the union and request a larger portion of the combined assets of the union. No one I know of has ever been jailed for adultery in this country.

Marriage is also not a prerequisite for co-habitation. People have lived in the same household for history immortal without being married. People have combined assets for time immemorial without the benefit of some ceremony. And in this country, there are no laws prohibiting gay sex (that are enforced, anyway; I am sure someone could go to dumb.com and look under laws to find some un-enforced examples
).

So my personal feelings on this matter are that this is a lot of big to-do about nothing. The marriage contract is not the only way two individuals may share their life, and carries with it very little in the way of strict legal enforcement. It is instead a social/religious ceremony. If two people wish to live together and share a life, it is none of my concern how they go about their lives.

That said, what we are seeing is the result of an attempt to force people to change their views, as opposed to a referendum on gay marriage alone. The people of California passed a referendum to prohibit the state sanctioning of a non-heterosexual marriage contract. This proposition was legally entered onto the ballot and legally subjected to a vote by the final authority in America: the people. The people approved the prohibition, for good or bad. Then a judge, an appointed judge at that, decided the will of the people was wrong (as it may or may not have been; that is a moot point) and unilaterally overturned this will of the people, without any clear legal basis.

Now we are seeing the result: instead of a simple law that could have been either ignored or repealed at a later date, we have a state constitutional amendment which will be much harder to either ignore or repeal. The result if it passes (which I believe it may well do) is that the will of the people will be heard finally and those who have been actively promoting gay marriage as a 'right' will suffer their greatest setback to date.

We have somehow gotten the impression in this country that all we must do is stand on a street with a picket sign and scream at others to get our way. It doesn't work like that. If you want to have gay marriage legally recognized, the first step is to convince others of your position and reasoning. You do not do that by bullying, threatening, or antagonizing. You do it by showing a well-prepared argument and showing it often. You do that by showing the unfairness you are seeing to others. You show your ability to share equally in an activity by demonstrating your intelligence and maturity. Parading down main street in cross-gender underwear waving signs designed to insult others during the local gay parade is not conducive to these ends. It is rather indicative of a lack of seriousness and a lack of morality. Every time this type of episode happens, every time a gay person is charged with pedophilia, every time a gay person is connected to illegal drugs, the movement suffers a setback in the minds of the people. And every time an attempt is made to force the issue through legal manipulation of the democratic process, the opponents of the movement will strengthen their will and make the movement less likely to succeed.

This is a wake-up call to those who would force their will onto others through the force of law. Change your tactics, or live in defeat. Should this pass, you will have defeated yourself; there is no one else to legitimately blame. If not, you have another chance to either ensure your defeat by continuing your self-defeating tactics or work toward a victory by changing them. It's your choice.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by k-string
The judges overturned your vote because you're wrong.


That's not your call or theirs to make. The fact is the majority of the people made a choice and that choice was not honored. The judges should be disbarred for putting their personal beliefs ahead of interpreting law.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Oh whatever, quit fear-mongering. The YES vote on Prop. 8 denies gays the right to "marriage", which is traditionally defined as the union of one man and one woman. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that definition and that's exactly how it should be upheld.

It doesn't say anything about civil unions which should be perfectly acceptable for gays.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
We need to decide as a society one way or the other. I for one believe in Equality for All. I am in favor of gay marriage.


So you're saying we need federal legislation that covers all states? A blanket law to enforce one way or the other a decision to allow or disallow gay marriage?

And what happens if the majority of people decide to not allow gay marriage? Would you still be in favor of that blanket law? I seriously doubt it.

I say let each state decide whether they will allow it and don't make it a national issue.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar

Today we deny the right to marriage for same-sex couples.

There is no enumerated right to marriage.


Tomorrow, we may deny the right to free assembly to Muslims.

There is an enumerated right to freedom of assembly.


Next week, we deny the right to privacy to Christians.

There is also an enumerated right to privacy.


Next year, the Jews are back in the camps.

There is also an enumerated right against unreasonable imprisonment.

This is an example of what I was talking about. There is more to getting a change made to our laws than most people realize. In order to get the will of the people behind you, you must convince them that you are right. Apparently some people believe that others respond positively to the same things they respond to negatively.

Bhadhidar, please forgive me for using your post as an example, but I actually want to see a solution to this divisive issue that will satisfy both parties. I completely agree that no one should be denied the ability to cohabit based on something that occurs in their bedroom. But I do not see where that is actually happening. What I do see happening is that gay couples are required to exercise stricter and more numerous contracts between themselves than a hetero couple would be required to exercise. That, plus there are, admittedly, a few 'benefits' of a recognized marriage that are not easily administered outside the legal definition of marriage: tax benefits and the ability to adopt are the two that spring to mind immediately. Tax benefits I can agree with you on wholeheartedly if there is no other difference between the cohabitation and a sanctioned marriage, and adoption I consider as a non-issue, since the purpose is not to make a couple happy by giving them a child, but to give the child a stable home. The emphasis here is on the well-being and happiness of the child, not those who adopt it.

Your initial points, however, have many holes. The majority does indeed rule. How else would you manage a society? By allowing the smallest minority to rule the majority? It is true we have laws in place to prevent discrimination, but in this case the law does not specifically address marriage. You have a legal case to make, not a clear-cut case. That requires public opinion to be on your side. Your closing statement even illustrates this:

Is this the direction we want for our Society?


'WE'. That says it all. You need 'WE'.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



The State recognizes the right of individuals to marry and honors that relationship as being special, and unlike any other form of relationship, under the law.

The right to marriage, itself may not be ennumerated, but is considered intrinsic as one of the fundemental rights possessed by all citizens.


Propsition 22, which prohibited any same-sex union from being identified as a "marriage" under the law, was found to be Unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of California



Because it would have resulted in Unequal treatment for same-sex couples under the law.




Equal Treatment Under the Law is the fundemental Issue at hand.



Should the State (or any governmental body) have a say with regards to who may or may not be considered "married"?


No. Marriage, as I see it, is a matter best left between those who would consider themselves so bonded, and those who honor that bond.



And IF "marriage" was purely a religious/sprirtual state of being, this would be a non-issue.

(The defeat of Proposition 8 will not, in any way require any religious organization to even recognize, not to mention, legitimize, a same-sex marriage, or any other "non-traditional" union.)


However, since the state Does recognize, honor, and in many instances, grant and/or allow to be granted certain rights and priveldges to married couples that are not specificaly or implicitly granted to the members of any other type of union, the State must, under the principle of Equality under the law, grant access to those same opportunities to all its citizens, in the same way, and by the same venue: the right to be called married under the law.




To re-iterate, the State of California did not grant same-sex couples the "Right to Marry"; it merely upheld the established Right of all its citizens to be treated equally under the law as set forth in the State's Constitution.




Propsition 8 is a far more serious issue than its supporters would have us believe. In fact, as I attempted to point out in my prior post, I do not think the supporters of this proposition have fully considered the dangerous precedent they will have sent if the proposition were to succede.

Proposition 8 seeks to change the Constitution of the State, the basis by which all other laws draw their legitimacy. In doing so, this proposition would insert into the State's "legal DNA", if you will, the precedent whereby an entire group of citizens, identifiable by a certain "commonality" not otherwise proscribed, can be singled out for different treatment under the law.


As with any legal precedent, once so established, ANY group, untited by a recognized commonality, could be singled out for "separate" (though not neccesarily, "equal") treatment under the law.

We've been down this road before, with often tragic results; as I previously noted.

And many of those instances occured despite existing constitutional protections! Do we really want to establish a constitutional basis for discrimination...or worse?

And don't fool yourselves, "worse" has happened. "Worse" is simply a matter of rationalization, usually predicated upon fear.



And Redneck, as an employee of the California State Franchise Tax Board, let me assure you that, California, as a Community Property state, Does consider 1/2 of a spouse's wages to be the property of the second spouse, at least for taxation purposes, if they file a joint return.



Edit to add the following:


As members of AboveTopSecret, I think it is safe to say that none of us fully trusts the intentions of our government (national/state/local).

That being the case, why would the voters of California, or any political entity for that matter, willingly authorize their ruling body the power to exclude them, to any degree, from the protections granted them under the law.

I may be slightly paranoid (hey, this isATS!), but I'm not crazy!



Making the kind of change this propositon proposes to make is like handing some one you do not trust a large rock and saying "Please don't hit me!"

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Bhadhidar]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Bhadhidar]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Bhadhidar]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Should the State (or any governmental body) have a say with regards to who may or may not be considered "married"?

No. Marriage, as I see it, is a matter best left between those who would consider themselves so bonded, and those who honor that bond.


So by your logic, your statement above, if the state cannot dictate who can be married, then it would be perfectly acceptable for a 50 year old man to marry an 8 year old girl if they both so desired?

The state MUST be able to step in and arrest, prosecute and punish those that would violate the laws, otherwise, by your argument, you would have child pornographers and sickos out there using marriage to CHILDREN as a way to get out of criminal prosecution! Completely unacceptable, in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



Nonsequitor arguement.


That is to say, Nonsensical arguement.


Either you failed your Reading Comprehension class in school, or you are deliberately attempting to equate same-sex marriage with child sexual exploitation (which, by the way, is statisticaly more likely to perpetrated by a Heterosexual male).



MY statement was that the state has no place in defining "marriage" in Any form.

I agree with those who posit that "Marriage" is a purely spiritual state established between to consenting individuals; a "Sacrament", if you will. And as such, the state has no place, if freedom of religion is to have any meaning, inserting itself in such a personal, spiritual institution.


It therefore goes without saying that I thus believe that the state should not afford the institution of "marriage" any greater significance or consideration in the formation and/or application of civil law.


In short, you don't get "extra points" for being "married".



On the other hand, if the state is willing to grant married couples extra "perks" (or acknowledge the legitimacy of other institutions to do so), simply by virtue of their status as "Married"; then under the doctrine of equal treatment under the law, anyone who can legitimately claim to be "married" must be afforded those same perks.



And "legitimacy" is a standard that must be concurrent with the basic rights established by the Constitution, applied in accordance with the principle of Equality Under the Law.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join