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.

 

Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
You can argue if such a law is constitutional or if it should even be on a ballot but when I see a check box and a proposition I will vote according to my beliefs just like anyone else.


And anyone who believes differently than you do should vote their conscience about how you live your life. Even if it's unconstitutional, like, something that would go against the first Amendment's freedom of religion... they should vote their conscience and if a majority feels that religion should be persecuted like in the good old days, then we should vote our conscience...

That's just so sad...

Let it be known that even though I am an atheist, I would fight to the death for your right to practice your religion.

I will never understand a "conscience" that would persecute a group of society. That doesn't even make sense to me.




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
as a California resident I am profoundly ashamed. Living in Orange County the past 2 weeks I've noticed a flood of Yes on 8 signs and I started to get worried.

So many of my friends I haven't spoken to today because I can only imagine what they're going through. So many lives halted.

We need to overturn this as fast as we can.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Prop 8 accomplished one important thing: it stopped judges from legislating from the bench.

It put the power to decide back in the hand of the people, which is where it belongs.

That is the essence, the true impact of Prop 8. Power to the people!


It also set the precedence that taking away rights already afforded is A-OK with people. I wonder which ones will be next?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I happen to heavily support Prop 8. It protects the traditional marriage. Marriage was never intended to be anything more but between a man and a woman. I am very glad this was passed.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
That's okay...I'm concerned with my beliefs and my God not your assertions. I know you think that is really insulting to me but truly it rolls off my back like water off a duck.


The truelly insulting thing is voting to take away rights from people. Sorry if you feel that my opinion isn't as good as yours.


I'm really disappointed with the level of exchanges here. I won't get riled though....


I'm really disappointed with people in general. Especially the ones who happily strip rights from others.

Maybe now you know my point of view a little better?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And anyone who believes differently than you do should vote their conscience about how you live your life. Even if it's unconstitutional, like, something that would go against the first Amendment's freedom of religion... they should vote their conscience and if a majority feels that religion should be persecuted like in the good old days, then we should vote our conscience...


Yes, Americans should vote on items put before them...I will even go out on a shaky limb to say you should vote your conscience.

Lets leave the rest to the supreme court.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Let it be known that even though I am an atheist, I would fight to the death for your right to practice your religion.


Thank you



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by flashL3
^ Then you dont agree with the fundamentals of democracy. My voice was initially silenced by these piece of crap judges. I had to go through the extra steps of restating my voice through a second vote and if you dont like what the MAJORITY have chosen to put into the constitution, get your own referendum that gets more votes than what we did. tough crap for you otherwise.


I wonder what it is that you do that they will take away next? I can't wait to happily vote yes.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


The right is to equality under the law.

When you get down to the bare bones of this, it is all about equality under the law.

So, in essence, if 51% of the voting public votes for the denial of that "right" or votes to remove that "right" (which the courts upheld, and I am not sure, but I do think that the Declaration of Independence states that we are all created "equal" with rights bestowed on them by their Creator....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), then it is ok to deny rights to people or to remove rights that they already have....as long at the majority thinks it is ok.

It is illegal to discriminate based on so many things....I don't understand why some people are so ok with discriminating against homosexuals just because of who they love, sleep with, and build a life with. It's sad.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
First you have to establish the "right", which has never been done. Next you have to show where it was taken away. How can you take something away that someone never had?


I guess it was my imagination the thousands of couples who were legally married in California?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I have been at work and havent had the chance to read everything but let me say this.

Proposition 8 is segregation whether you like it or not, we have now made it illegal for gays to be married. Back in the early years it was illegal for blacks to use anything meant for whites so how can you even sit here and deny that this is segregation?

Marriage and civil union seems like a wonderful concept EXCEPT ITS SEGREGATION! Ever heard of seperate but equal? sure you can express your love through civil union and hey its the same thing as marriage almost, but no way in hell can you ever get married in this state.

For all those religious nuts. Marriage is NOT traditionally christian, its a pagan tradition first. And putting a ban on someones right to pursue happiness through marriage is not gods work its Unconstitutional. Not only have you segregated AGAIN but you have infringed on the rights of all those who wanted nothing more than to be recognized as a human being rather than a gay, or lesbian.

I can bet you anything that if a opened a store but I only allowed atheists in that store, all of you god fearing nuts would go crazy with anger. You would tell me that I was segregating one group of people over an other.

I am ashamed in anyone who supported that bill, and I am not only ashamed but disgusted at those on ATS who supported that ban on civil rights.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Sorry if you feel that my opinion isn't as good as yours.


Don't worry about what others think you should be able to vote your conscience...I support your right to do so..hopefully you support mine.


Originally posted by Griff
Maybe now you know my point of view a little better?


I understood you from the beginning.

[edit on 11/5/2008 by kinglizard]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 






What rights already afforded to gays were taken away?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I like how people on both sides of the issue can contort the constitution to their liking. Note that this not only happens on this issue but others as well.

Another comment, due process???? When is an issue voted on not due process? Will the losing side of this issue only claim due process when they get their way?

Honestly I would have been fine either way the vote went since it really does not affect me. But, as a general observation on any issue where discrimination is perceived, is it not the norm for the alleged discriminatees to scream due process until they get their way? Really.

Their was an issue. It was voted on. It passed. I can see those who opposed prop 8 venting, which is natural and fine. If you feel discriminated against, channel that energy into getting your position back on the next ballot AND actually recruit enough people to vote for it, OR get to work on getting Prop 8 declared unconstitutional. File a case.... appeal, get to work on it. Don't cry due process. The people in California were presented a proposition and have spoken, get more people to speak your way!

I swear, it seems that everyone feels entitled to anything at their whim. Think about what those affected by the Civil Rights movement had to go through to achieve. Did you really think this was going to be easy?

"You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." Yes, I just freaking quoted John Cougar Mellencamp. I felt like it.... sue me!

peace



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


For months and months, they had the RIGHT to get married. Yesterday, that RIGHT was taken away....just because the majority of society didn't agree with that RIGHT.

That's WRONG.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Prop 8 accomplished one important thing: it stopped judges from legislating from the bench.

It put the power to decide back in the hand of the people, which is where it belongs.

That is the essence, the true impact of Prop 8. Power to the people!


Please. You don't support pure democracy, you are not an anarchist. You support a Republic. You support the voice of the majority only when it supports your opinion. Flip flop, pick and choose.

Whatever



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Are you serious?

How about their fundamental right to pursue happiness, or to be treated equally?

Prop 8 is nothing but jim crow laws for the gay community.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
Don't worry about what others think you should be able to vote your conscience...I support your right to do so..hopefully you support mine.


Yes, I support your rights and would die defending them. But, it's obvious by your replies in this thread that you don't support and/or respect mine. Plain and simple. I can only wonder why you can't see this?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Personally, I could care less if they call it marriage. Just give me the same rights. That's all I ask.


Okay....done.

Domestic Partnership. That's what we will call it in California.


Gay and lesbian couples can face major challenges when one partner becomes sick or dies. Partners are not guaranteed the right to visit their loved-one in the hospital, or make funeral arrangements when one of them dies. Many times a widowed gay or lesbian will not only have to deal with the grief or losing their life partner, but will also face losing the home they made together. The Domestic Partnership law prevents these tragedies from happening.



The only way for gay and lesbian parents to have these same rights is through legislation such as the Domestic Partnership law.

Link to Above Info.

This is not an "in your face" response to anyone. It is only as I understand the laws here to be.

Is this not how it is?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 



Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by jsobecky
 


The right is to equality under the law.

When you get down to the bare bones of this, it is all about equality under the law.


This is where the debate begins.

I don't want to take away anyone's opportunity to visit their loved one in the hospital, etc. That is inhumane.

But I don't believe that just because I can wear a gun and badge that I can call myself Sheriff.

Don't take away my right to bear a gun or wear a badge. But on the other hand, I don't expect to be able to stop you for a traffic infraction.



So, in essence, if 51% of the voting public votes for the denial of that "right" or votes to remove that "right" (which the courts upheld, and I am not sure, but I do think that the Declaration of Independence states that we are all created "equal" with rights bestowed on them by their Creator....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), then it is ok to deny rights to people or to remove rights that they already have....as long at the majority thinks it is ok.


Happiness should be based upon your love for another, not what you want society to call you.

Nobody is saying homosexuality is illegal. Seperate it from a label of marriage, and things will become clear to you. You have no right to a label of married. You have a right to pursue happiness.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Gay marriage does not affect straight couples. It only allows gay couples the same privileges. This would be a non-issue if the government did not involve itself in marriage in the first place and gave some rights only to married couples. Prop 8 is a huge mistake; it accepts the separate but equal mentality that has never served our nation well. And for what?
Let us examine the arguments against gay marriage,

Religion-

Why in a secular nation should anyone be held accountable to someone else’s belief system? This is the worst. Prop 8 was driven by scare tactics involving children and religious bias. Our constitution makes it clear laws and amendments can not be made that favor a religion, yet religion is the only solid argument against gay marriage. The others are created by the religious right to excuse their opposition.

It would destroy our country and morality-

It has yet to do so in several countries. Including Scandinavian countries where civil unions and marriage has been legal among same-sex couples for years. Anyway this is poor reasoning because gay couples in general have not been proven to have an adverse affect on society what so ever, to assume marriages would with no basis is unfounded.

Taxes cuts awarded to straight couples because they raise families should not be awarded to gay couples-

1. Gay couples raise families as well. I think the statistic is at 44% now?
2. There are many married people in our country who do not nor do they wish to have children. The simplest solution is to not give the tax breaks to those who do not have children or abolish them altogether, duh.


It will change the tradition of marriage-

The tradition of marriage has been changed through out our history, this is why women are not men’s property and blacks can marry whites. Our current tradition is an already tampered version of marriage, so there is no reason why we should not change it again to include gay couples; especially since it does not affect straight couples in any way.


If you think a majority possibly being against gay marriage makes denying this right to people okay you are DEAD WRONG. The majority has been for segregation and slavery in our country previously, this does not make something constitutional. This is why this issue should not be put to a vote, if the integration of schools was put to a vote we may still be educationally segregated, it is our politicians responsibility to see through our nations bigotry and injustice.


Also it can not be ignored that our countries health system has declared that homosexuality is not a choice, that “ex-gay” methods fail, and that to be a healthy, fully function adult one must accept their sexuality. Also it has been concluded that children raised by homosexuals are at no disadvantage. What is wrong with this country? It’s infuriating. (The American Psychological Association www.apa.org/)

Addressing other arguments made against and for gay marriage:


(NOTE: I did not write these counter arguments, this is from the site www.bidstrup.com... by Scott Bidstrup)


Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of this argument are really hard pressed to explain, if that's the case, why infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings and sleep in separate bedrooms.


Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.


Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue


When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.


-we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency.Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners.If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?


-Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?


-If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do.


-These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join