Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


To me democracy is exactly the same as majority rule.

That is why I would be inclined to respect this vote.

If the constitutionally intended system of Constitutional Republicanism were used instead, no rights could be infringed. However we have seen the first and second amendment effectively violated numerous times.

Under constitutional republicanism it would be of paramount importance to identify whether marriage is a fundamental natural right (not human right). If it is ruled as such by the SCOTUS, then withholding marriage from gay people would be illegal.

Under democracy (current system), anything the majority say is legally binding. Thus whether it be gun bans or bans on gay marriage, it is legally binding.

Until and unless the USA returns to constitutional republicanism, all talk of immoral voting is moot. Just for the record, I would of course support such a return to constitutionality, including the right for people to marry whosoever they please. As long as the government isn't supplying any specific tax breaks as a result of marriage, who am I to care or dictate what other people do.




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
In Florida we had the same thing, called "No. 2" and it had a 60%+ vote towards banning gay marriage.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Marriage licenses should not be issued or withheld based on the gender of your partner. That's discrimination.


In this sentence, replace the word "gender" with the following:

1. age
2. blood lines
3. mental status
4. species
5. pre-existing marital status
6. actual existence

You see, we have these things called social norms. They are the rules that we, as a group, use to define what is acceptable behavior, beliefs, and values within our society. Some social norms, such as aversion to murder, rape, and robbery are universally accepted. Some others, such as homosexuality, may be tolerated in the face of general disapproval if the belief and behavior does not infringe or harm others in the group, or challenge more strongly accepted norms.

Items 1-6 are against our social norms, and have been codified into law. Homosexual marriage was also against our social norms at the time that these laws were written. Challenges to these laws failed, and the public obviously disapproves of changing the norm. When you "undefine" the definition of marriage as being a legal union between and man and a woman, you open up the possibility that items 1-6 may be open for re-interpretation.

The definition of marriage as a social norm has existed for thousands of years. If a small minority of persons want to change the social norm based upon homosexual preference and behavior, it puts the legitimacy of the norm at risk. I'm not surprised the voters in CA voted they way they did. Traditions and social norms are important.

If gays want to live like married people, invent a new term, establish a new social norm, and get on with it. I've always thought that's what a "civil union" was supposed to be.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
To me democracy is exactly the same as majority rule.

That is why I would be inclined to respect this vote.


To take it to the extreme, if Majority ruled that having sex with children was legal, would you still respect that vote?



The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority".


Democracy

In my opinion, that's what's happening here. Because the majority feels icky about same sex marriages, the have decreed that the minority will not have the same rights as they do.

No need to argue about it, though. California has voted and for now, that is the law. I can only hope it will change. I'm straight as a board and am joyfully married to a person of the opposite sex, but I want that right for all people, not just those of us in the majority...



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I'm slightly confused. I thought California recently passed something that allowed gay marriages? Then a few celebrities had publicized weddings to their same-sex partners? Or was it just a city thing now trumped by the state law? What just happened? Sorry for my ignorance. Just a couple months ago (if that even), there were threads about California legalizing gay marriages (I thought)? My memory must be wrong somewhere.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


They didn't legalize gay marriage in California, the State Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to ban them according to the State Constitution. This amendment was to change the State Constitution to ban them.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
And, now since Prop 8 passed, what happens to all the gay couples that got married during the time in California when it was legal?

That kind of concerns me. Do they let the marriages stand or to they invalidate all of them....which, by the way, would be so wrong and so unfair in so many ways.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Morally it is wrong of me to accept this, but pragmatically I just dont care enough about gay rights to either leave the country/ start some sort of campaign.

If in the hypothetical, the majority voted to legalise paedophilia; that would be enough of a stimulus for me to either leave that country or start some sort of political or more likely military campaign.

On the obverse, what if the claim was made by certain communities that their rights to marriage were supremely constitutionally protected. Would you propose allowing a brother and a sister to marry each other? After all, by the logic of the human rights brigade, they are supposedly two consenting adults...



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Ah ok. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The original initiative passed against gay marriage was struck down as un-Constitutional by the State Supreme Court. This was a new bill, a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I supported it and voted for it.

I echo the sentiments of kinglizard in asking, what about civil unions? I believe in equal rights for alternative lifestyles. Separate, but equal. I think the same rights associated with traditional marriage, outside of parental rights, should be afforded to same sex couples. Again, procreation is not something that should take place outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. That may be the next issue that comes to the table, as a matter of fact.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
What more can be said. The people of California have spoken AGAIN!.
Let's hope another judge does not disrespect the people again.

For all of you pro gay marriage folks, perhaps you should just focus on legal unions from now on. The average people accept the concept of a legal union/partnership and stop calling people bigots if they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Separate, but equal.


You did your opinion a great disservice by using that phrase. It was the rallying call of segregation and apartheid, expect that to be used against your views.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I was starting to think we were making progress by electing a black president... but hearing that california has banned gay marriage just shows me we still need a lot of work.

i live here in california, and i cant understand how that would happen. there are so many people here who accept gays. why vote for them to not get married? if they want to, let them. I dont understand why that should be anyone else's choice, and to make that for them... how very horrible.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


As far as the government is concerned, marriage, civil unions, or whatever you want to call it is no more than a legal contract between two individuals. To use religious convictions to decide who can and cannot enter such a contract is quite simply unamerican. To me it's the same as passing an amendment that only white people can form corporations. In the end, it hurts no one to allow gay marriage, but to outlaw it hurts the gay community and tells them that they are second class citizens, something that to me is the definition of unamerican behavior!



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRooster
Like Stinkhorn said, it's a sexual preference. If that had passed, marrying farm animals would have been next.


Comming from the poster whos name is TheRooster. Says it all doesn't it?

[edit on 11/5/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




Where do you get that right? Where is this right specified? Where is the restriction (of the opposite sex) specified?


I guess it depends on what your definition of marriage is. To me, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. By its very definition. I don't believe anyone has the right to redefine the institution of marriage to include same sex partners. If they did, it wouldn't be marriage anymore. It would be something else, like a civil union maybe, but it wouldn't be marriage.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




I hope it will be declared unconstitutional


I doubt it. It amends the State Constitution as to the definition of marriage. Maybe you are hoping it will be found against the US Constitution? Again, I think CA is within its rights to allow the voters to amend the State Constitution. Can an amendment made to a state Constitution be un-Constitutional at that same state, or the federal level? I'm not sure.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I realized that after posting it. The context of the usage was in reference to the definition of marriage. I said it needed to be called something else.

I know there are catch phrases out there that are associated with certain movements past and present. I in no way meant my post to support the "separate but equal" slogan movements of the past.

Thanks for pointing this out and giving me the opportunity to clarify my remarks.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


I agree with you but when it comes to deciding a lot of these things, it can't be decided(both parents want the kids) then the state has to intervene.
So there is some government interest.

But i find this whole thing very sad also.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRooster
Like Stinkhorn said, it's a sexual preference. If that had passed, marrying farm animals would have been next.


You know you are correct, its not a step backward, its acually seeing right and wrong and saying hey that is wrong. Its sexual deviance. Just like child porn.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum