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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



Originally posted by sos37

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.




Originally posted by Bhadhidar

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.



[edit on 30-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Actually I completely disagree with you. The comparison is very much relevant if you are saying that the state has no business defining marriage in any form. It doesn't mean I failed reading comprehension, it means I read what you said and in my opinion it's a load of BOLLOCKS.

I posit that in some cases the state MUST define marriage for the protection of society.

And while I agree that the practice of marriage is a spiritual rite, I also defer to a religion that tells its followers to obey the laws set in place by the land in which its followers live. That particular phrase to I am referring came out of the Bible, BTW.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by sos37
 



Originally posted by sos37

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.




Originally posted by Bhadhidar

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.



[edit on 30-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]


Okay, so what is being voted on now IS the Constitution and whether or not to leave it the way it is or amend it. Are you saying you would be okay with the outcome either way if it's the will of the people?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Here is a quote from my earlier post


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 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar

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 state recognizes the institution of marriage, not the right. There is a difference. We already have laws that restrict the institute of marriage, such as those against polygamy or marriage to (or between) minors.


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

I need a source from something official that says marriage is considered an un-enumerated right. UNtil then, I stand by my previous statements that it is not a 'right'.


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

Yes, it was. It was struck down by one appointed judge. Now, that judge was legally able to make the decision he did, and it may or may not have been the 'correct' decision to make. However, once the decision was made, the ball was then in the hands of the people who initially voted to abolish same-sex marriage. Those people are the true seat of power, and it is those people that you have to convince, not me. I actually can see and sympathize with your concern. The only reason I am posting is to try and help you and others understand that you simply cannot run rampant across the citizenry, regardless of right or wrong.


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

That is a legal interpretation, again, which may or may not be accurate. One could argue that gays are still allowed to marry, just not members of the same sex. Heterosexuals cannot marry members of the same sex either. Therefore, the law may be said to be equally applied to all people.

My point here is that you may have a case, but you are still pursuing a legal interpretation, not a blatant violation of legal principle. As such, it will take much more than a single judge to resolve the issue.


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

They already do. Marriage is recognized as valid for those of the opposite sex, under certain age limitations, and limited to a single couple, no more. A lack of marriage between those eligible for marriage but who simply cohabitate is not considered a way around the marriage regulations, as common-law marriage is automatic after a set period of time (which varies from state to state). The ability of a state to set restrictions on marriage is firmly set in precedent.


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.

The state also recognizes and grants certain rights and privileges to ministers of established faiths. I am not able to marry people, but they are. Should I sue because my rights are being violated under that same clause?

The state recognizes and grants certain privileges to people who have a drivers license. Does that mean they cannot 'discriminate' against the blind, and must issue them a drivers license?


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.

That is a specious argument at best. Prop 22 specifically addressed the singular issue of same-sex marriage. Prop 8 is a response to the ruling against the passed Prop 22. You can call it what you will, but a rose is still a rose, and a skunk is still a skunk, regardless of name.


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.

Absolutely it is serious! I am not arguing for it.

But it is those who brought the case of Prop 22 before a judge to have the will of the voters thrown out who are ultimately responsible for Prop 8 to be on the ballot in the first place (IMHO). Prop 22 could have been overturned by popular vote in the next election and would have then been denigrated to a listing on dumb.com for others to laugh at. Prop 8 is much more serious and far-reaching. But someone decided to overrule the will of society and demand that the vote for Prop 8 was not even valid. Do you not see how much hatred this action would cause for the average person who voted for it? That anger has now surfaced as Prop 8.

And should Prop 8 fail, I will make a prediction here. You will see anti-gay violence increase dramatically in California (and possibly in other places). It won''t be by me, as I really do not care that much, and I truly hope this is one prediction that doesn't come true. You stood outnumbered in a crowd and demanded that others agree with you for no other reason (in their mind( than you wanted them to. That's how riots start. Now we will see the results of that strategy.


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.

Yes we have. The Civil War comes to mind.


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

No, we don't... or I should say, no, I don't. Someone apparently does, because they instigated this fight with apparently no forethought.


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.

I was speaking of Federal taxes. California may well be different, and I bow to your knowledge on that subject. I don't pay income tax to the State of California.

Again, I care whether gay marriage is allowed just as much as others seem to care that there are no restaurants where I can have a good meal and a quiet smoke in peace anymore. That was no one else's concern; this is not my concern. I am simply stating that the very reason Prop 8 is now a dangerous proposal to the cause of gay marriage is that the wrong tactics have been used to force an opinion change onto the population by legal maneuvering.

I wish you the best in your quest to defeat Prop 8. You need all the help you can get.

TheRedneck


[edit on 30-10-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That is a legal interpretation, again, which may or may not be accurate. One could argue that gays are still allowed to marry, just not members of the same sex. Heterosexuals cannot marry members of the same sex either. Therefore, the law may be said to be equally applied to all people.


There is no flaw inherent to that argument...in a legal sense.

In this case, there is a resounding difference between 'equally applied' and 'equality'.

Morality is a breathing entity. The Law is stagnant without its liveliness, and stagnation is death.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Well, hello Lucid!

That was my point, that this argument from a legal standpoint has two sides. As usual, people seem to have trouble with seeing both of them. Maybe we're devolving to get rid of that pesky stereoscopic vision, but I'm glad to hear you are resisting that devolvement.


If by 'breathing entity', you mean that morality evolves, I have to disagree with you. Morality cannot evolve and still remain morality. It becomes something of an excuse instead to do what we want. Taking an innocent life is still taking an innocent life, regardless of what century you happen to live in. And equality is still equality.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I believe there are universal moral absolutes BUT we evolve and discover them through moral relativism.

It's 'breathing' because it is alive (evolves) and it's an 'entity' (a tangible absolute, a universal). I hope this makes any sense


And such, I believe Equality is one of the ones we have discovered.

Also I do believe I see the other arguments. The concern of amending the Constitution. That Marriage is a religious institution. The majority just voted in its opposition. I believe the moral absolute that is Equality transcends these. Just my personal take.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
A lot to agree with... as I have discovered is usual for you.


Moral absolutes, yes. Discovery of morality... well, I think of it more as discovery of how the absolutes apply to modern life, but I guess that's similar.

And equality being the absolute that applies, I cannot disagree with. It would just be nice if both sides would look at the other, with the mindset to find a solution (as you seem to be doing). So far, that doesn't seem to be happening...


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I am upset about this erroneous finger pointing at African-Americans regarding Proposition 8. Why are you so quick to believe whatever you hear? If someone told me 70 percent of gay people voted against Obama my first thought would be, excuse me Jesus, that is crap! I don't believe it! This political year was fraught with right wing lies. Bear that in mind.

"Religious organizations that support Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church], Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family[and the National Organization for Marriage Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California's largest, has also endorsed the measure. The Bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has publicly supported the proposition and encouraged their membership to support it, by asking its members to donate money and volunteer time. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every congregation. Latter-day Saints have provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to Protect Marriage.com has come from Utah, over three times more than any other state."

Still, even though gays were fighting to preserve a basic right, it was the anti-equality side in California that seemed to have the most fervor. A symbolic low point for the gay side came on Oct. 13, when the Sacramento Bee ran a remarkable story about Rick and Pam Patterson, a Mormon couple of modest means - he drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic, she raises their five boys - who had withdrawn $50,000 from their savings account and given it to the pro-8 campaign. "It was a decision we made very prayerfully," Pam Patterson, 48, told the Bee's Jennifer Garza. "Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children.”

This is your real enemy. Don't trust exit polls. I think they are pitting one group against the other. African-Americans are less than 7% of the state population, do the math. Many more Whites voted and they put this over, not Blacks. What are the total numbers of each group that voted. Someone dug into the data and found that we're just now learning is that the exit poll was based on less than 2,300 people. If you take into account that blacks in California only make up about 6.2%, we get roughly 224 blacks who were polled. 224 blacks to blame an entire race! The original percentage of black voters who were expected to say yes to Prop 8 was only around 52-58%. Anytime you get a vote that much higher over the projected vote, something went wrong.

I know someone who watches C-Span and they said most Blacks did not even address the question at all. And they do not have the money to fund a tens of millions of dollars Proposition 8 campaign. Note that they also targeted affirmative action for eradication in another state.

I cannot believe that these groups get a pass and Blacks are being targeted for the blame game. Rather than be upset at the phantom African-American menace, fight like hell. There is no right wing black conspiracy against gay Americans. When you tried to align your struggle with that of Blacks you inherited their enemies. These same enemies are now trying to pit one against the other because they fear the combined numbers of both.


How many gay activists supported the civil rights movement in the 1960’s? Then how do you automatically expect support in return? Have you asked Blacks to support you or did you just assume?



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
Are you joking? Allowing gays to get married and slavery are not even related. Gays have the right to vote and the right to recruit people to vote. Same with the opposition. Those votes should be honored no matter who casts them.


If we had left civil rights in the 60s up to a vote, black people in most states in this country still would not have rights to this day. There would still be separate drinking fountains and no voting rights for black people.

Do you honestly not see that putting someone's civil rights up for a vote is just plain screwed up?



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
Right/wrong its all subjective. The voters spoke. Period.

On the same token, if the voters had voted it down and voted to legalize gay marriage I would support that too. It should not be up to the judges.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by SuperSecretSquirrel]


The voters spoke to remove the rights of a minority.

So that justifies the masses removing rights of others as they wish?

You cannot run a state or a country that way. The rights of ALL should be protected, especially when that decision DOESN'T AFFECT YOU!

Next you'll all be voting on whether black people should have the right to vote.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join