Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Proposition 8 WAS NOT about "marriage", traditional or otherwise.

Nor was Propsition 8 about Sex, Gay, Straight, Group or Bestial.


The California Supreme Court overturned a prior law (Proposition 22) because it was found to be unconstitutional, that is, in conflict with the Constitution of the State of California.

The Justices found that the prior law was unconstitutional in that it would have required the existing laws regarding the State's recognition of marriage to be applied differently for same-sex couples seeking recognition as being married.


This "different treatment", they found was tantamount to "Unequal Treatment Under the Law" for such citizens of the State, and therefore in violation of the right Equal Treatment Under the Law, as guaranteed by the State's Constitution.





In this context, no matter how it was worded, promoted, potrayed, or "spun", Proposition 8 was really about



Establishing a Precedent Whereby the Government May, at its Choosing, DENY otherwise Law-Abiding Citizens the Right to Equal Treatment under the Fundamental Law of the Land.



Some one previously mentioned the "Jim Crow" laws of the South.


Have we not learned from that sorry state of affairs that "Separate" is Never "Equal"? No matter how "Traditional" or how much in keeping with "Social Norms" the decision might be.




If Proposition 8 does pass, however, in the spirit of preserving "social norms" and in the interest of a "healthy" society, I propose that the citizens of California immediately begin a new drive to expand the provisions of Propsition 8 to include other groups which, if allowed to marry, might pose a detriment to that sacred institution, such as:


- The previously divorced.

- The mentally deficient (of course this might mean no more married politicians).

- Those born with physical defects of any kind (wouldn't want to pass on Those genes, would we?)

- And of course, Muslims! (Since Islam forbids sex outside of marriage, prohibiting Muslims from marrying means fewer and fewer Islamic terrorists to deal with, Right?)





Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.

A slippery slope, indeed!

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Bhadhidar]




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I guess it depends on what your definition of marriage is.


EXACTLY! Who defines your marriage? YOU DO.


Who defines mine? I DO!

Do I have the right to define your marriage? It's a preposterous idea!

It's none of my business whether you and your spouse live together or apart; have children or not; share expenses or keep them separate; have sex or abstain; have an "open marriage" or are monogamous; go to church or play kinky sex games on Sunday morning. It's simply NONE of my business.

I DEFINE my marriage, but I have no right to define yours.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Proposition 8 WAS NOT about "marriage", traditional or otherwise.

Nor was Propsition 8 about Sex, Gay, Straight, Group or Bestial.




Maybe not for you.

As someone who is a breeder, and who is raising children, I am sick and tired of having the freaks of the fringe sexualize public life in America. I shouldn't have to explain homosexuality to my 8 year old. I resent having to do so, and resent it even more when someone else wants to talk to my kids about sex.

I don't have any hatred for gays. If they would leave me alone, I might be predisposed to leave them alone. But by demanding that we all talk constantly about gay sex, they sort of brought prop 8 on themselves in California, and other propositions in most other states.

I don't want to have to explain to my son why his teacher is married to another man.

The real root of the problem isn't even about the constitution; it comes down the radicals' confusion of tolerance with affirmation. In the old days, in the US, you were required to tolerate people you didn't like. But now, we are expected to AFFIRM things we think are wrong.

At that point, when you have pushed the issue so far, it makes the group begin to wonder whether maybe even mere tolerance is too much to give, since they are going to push it until you affirm them as wonderful.

Sometimes, that makes me think that even tolerance is a mistake. That the other side wants nothing else than to nullify everything I value. At that point, when that perception erupts into consciousness, it makes sharing the constitution with radicals seem like a huge mistake.

I don't like it, I'm just saying.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Not yet. Its in the lead but there are over 3000000 mail in ballots etc left ot count.


Including mine!

Which was a compassionate NO on 8!

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
"Daddy, why is my male teacher married to a man?"

"Well son, your teacher and his partner must have loved each other very much, and decided to make a permanent commitment to each other, just like Mommy and I did."

Wow, wasn't that scary!
I'm sure the eight year old will be emotionally scarred for life.

Obviously he'll now grow up wanting to marry a fish!



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by dbates
It's clear what the benefit of man/woman unions are.


I'm not so clear on it. Would you expand on that? Thanks.

You're just being coy. Obviously contracts that bind man/woman unions are unique in that they help to promote the welfare of the state by providing and providing for the next generation. While not all man/woman unions result in children this is in fact the only union that can produce children. A society with no youth has no future, thus it is in the state's interest to help encourage and support this cause.

There is no vested interest on the state's behalf for same-sex contracts. These contracts make no lasting contribution to society. Why should government money and time be wasted on such a fruitless enterprise?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
What more can be said. The people of California have spoken AGAIN!.


And the people of California have also spoken out that medical marijuana should be legal. Why isn't it?


Let's hope another judge does not disrespect the people again.


Exactly.


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.


I would be fine with this.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
"Well son, your teacher and his partner must have loved each other very much, and decided to make a permanent commitment to each other, just like Mommy and I did."

I love my parents and brothers, but I don't need a contract with them to prove it. What exact purpose is the contract for? What good does it accomplish?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
- Preamble of the United States Constitution


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- United States Declaration of Independence

====
Mod Edit: 'ex' tags, source




[edit on 11/6/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
but to outlaw it hurts the gay community and tells them that they are second class citizens,


Actually, it makes us THIRD class citizens as even prisoners can marry while even doing their prison term. One of the Manendez brothers (who murdered his parents in cold blood) was able to marry his "pen-pal" girl friend while serving his life sentence. How do people think that makes us feel?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


I wish they would have just spelled it out on the ballot. Instead of using ambiguous and misleading terms like "To define marriage as union between a man and woman..."

That's nonsense. It should have read:

Vote YES to deny gays from adopting and marrying
Vote NO to allow gays to adopt and marry

How hard would that be? I have a feeling that the wording of that amendment was phrased in such a way that you either didn't understand it, or so that it didn't seem like it had anything to do with gay rights.

Until I thought about it for a while myself, I didn't realize it had anything to do with gay rights.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


So, because YOU aren't confortable talking to your own children, we should all bow down to YOUR wishes? Isn't this exactly what you are trying to say the gays want?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
If you want to commit yourself to another person for life (or some portion of it), then you should be able to do it. I don't care if you are straight, bi, or homosexual.

Morality shouldn't be legislated, especially to the point when it treats a large group of normal, law-abiding Americans like second or third class citizens.

My morality may not match yours, my sexuality may not match yours, my color may not match yours, my religion may not match yours, my gender may not match yours, but my rights should never be MORE than yours.

Our rights should be equal, no matter what.

It isn't like "gay" is going to rub off on anyone....it isn't contagious. And, it isn't like "gay marriage" is going to lessen the meaning of "straight marriage". Us straight folks have done enough to lessen the meaning of marriage with the divorce rates and adultry rates.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


If the people in California want to get stoned then so be it. Actually, I'm surprised that medical weed isn't legal in Cali. I found out many years after my grandfather died of many illnesses that my grandma used to get him pot from neighbor to soothe his pain in his waning months. It was cheaper and easier than all of the pain prescriptions he was taking. My grandma buying pot... I still can't picture it 30 years later.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
If the people in California want to get stoned then so be it.


The point is that the majority voted to legalize it. It is still illegal. What happened to "majority rules"?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I still have to wonder what happens to the marriages of the California gay couples who got married when gay marriage was legal. Do they stay the same or get invalidated??



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jibeho
If the people in California want to get stoned then so be it.


The point is that the majority voted to legalize it. It is still illegal. What happened to "majority rules"?


Please don't think that I'm some kind of stoner. The majority should technically rule in this case. But because the govt. cannot or will not control the process of legalization. They don't want to compete with themselves for the market share.
The govt. has been dealing weed for years.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
also important to note who was behind this entire proposition.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



little attention has been focused on two of the proposition's biggest individual donors: Elsa Broekhuizen, the mother of Blackwater founder Erik Prince, and Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., the reclusive theocratic millionaire who inherited $300 million from his philanthropist father at age 18.

During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


If the proposition itself wasn't enough to infuriate some of you, I hope the reasoning behind it does. Not to mention the other big supporter is the mother of the founder of Blackwater... a corporation of mercenaries. I can't remember which gospel mercenaries were in, but I'm pretty sure God/Jesus was all for killing-for-hire. It's in there somewhere, probably in Numbers.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


That is just ridiculous.

When is this country going to realize that morality cannot and should not be legislated?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zman

Originally posted by TheRooster
Like Stinkhorn said, it's a sexual preference. *snip*


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. *snip*


Can you believe my post was removed? For being off topic? Mods... if the topic hits a little too close to home and you don't like what's written...

Rather than remove the post, why don't you try to get me to see your light? Free speech doesn't just protect the popular words, it protects them all.


OT and offensive quotes removed

[edit on 11/6/2008 by Badge01]





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join