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.

 

Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law


www.examiner.com

SACRAMENTO (Map, News) - California's top election official says supporters can start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot measure to strike the word "marriage" from all state laws.

Supporters of this ballot measure want to replace it with the term "domestic partnership," while keeping all the rights of marriage in place.

The proposal is in response to a voter-approved gay marriage ban that passed in November. The new measure would repeal the ban, and define domestic partnerships as unions between all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen said Tuesday that supporters must gather nearly 700,000 signatures by early August to get the initiative on the ballot.

The measure is the grassroots effort of two heterosexual college students.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Another chapter in the continuing saga of Proposition 8. This is an initiative, the brainchild of two college students, to strike the word "marriage" from California law and instead subtitute "domestic partnership," which could refer to a couple that is either heterosexual or gay. They need 700,000 signatures by August to get the initiative on the ballot.

Seems like a great idea, but the folks who supported Proposition 8 will probably vote it down.

www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Wow.

So if the gays can't have what they want then I guess noone else can.
First goes the name...



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Edit: Double Post...

[edit on 10/3/2009 by n0b0DY]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Edit: Triple Post.

[edit on 10/3/2009 by n0b0DY]


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
How about striking the GOVERNMENT out of MARRIAGE !

Government should not be involved in personal, consensual, loving relationships!



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
This is truly awesome. I sense sarcasm in the decision to do this... But still, since marriage is a religious thing and not a STATE thing, this is the only fair thing to do.

Then we can let the religious have their little 'marriage' ceremonies in church... and if they want their relationship to be recognized by the state, they can file for a civil union.

about time, I hope this passes.

In no way, should marriage be tied only to the religious nutjobs, and then they expect the state to acknowledge it too...

Seperation of church and state



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
uh, what?

Second line here..

Third Line here...



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Glad to hear SOMEONE has some damn common sense.

Church and State definately need to be seperated.

So do Business and State.

There is no reason why two people in love shouldn't be able to "commit" to each other. Regardless of their sexual orientation.

And n0b0DY ... they aren't getting rid of "marriage" just the WORD "marriage" in relation to state laws and replacing it with the WORDS "domestic partnership".



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Go ahead do that. This shouldn't be even under vote it should be instaured right now. You can't make people vote to take other's people rights like Prop 8.

Gay should be able to marry, period.

Or I suggest something in the light of Prop 8, restricting rights to others: Should whites be able to drive? Should blacks be able to marry with whites? Should jews be allowed to go along with their lives without being marked by a yellow star?

Prop 8 is as rubbish as that.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Oh I know.

Like I said.

First goes the name.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by n0b0DY
 


Do you have anything constructive to add to this conversation? Seems you're only capable of one liners.

Anyway back tot he subject at thand.


I think this is great initiative, now the church crazies can't say were attemtping to dismantle marriage, were simply changing the wording to allow for less discrimination.

This is what the US was built on. Nice step forward.

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
This is what I have been arguing for for years as the proper approach to the gay marriage issue.

The gays are right in that all citizens deserve equal legal rights, period.

The religious folks make a fair point that the government ought not to be allowed to define "marriage" as a religious/cultural institution.

Thus getting the .gov out of the business of defining "marriage" is the best solution to properly recognize everyone's rights, gays and religious traditionalists alike.

Unfortunately both sides have so much invested in "winning" this fight that I don't think either side is interested in compromising.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Marriage is just a contractual setup by the government. A sanctioned union,meant to procreate more slaves for the machine.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


I for one am offended by this kind of reply. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that encourages more discrimination against gays.

You're ignorance is clearly shown by you're reference to "butt buddies"

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

I couldn't read Piemaker's remarks, because by the time I read his post it had a warning on it. But I can guess from that and your reaction what it basically entailed.

I also see this initiative as a solution to the church/state conflict. This way churchgoers can reserve the right to define what "marriage" is or is not and impose their own beliefs in the process. They would be the sole providers of this sacrament and so would have ownership to define it according to their particular doctrines (not all churches agree on all points) and perform it in their own way(s).

At the same time it removes religion from the state, which by defining the institution without partiality to the beliefs of one particular segment of the population can address all people without prejudice. People who wish to enter into
domestic partnerships would have the choice of a civil ceremony (most often chosen by the non-religious anyway) or perhaps the rites of a church which more closely agrees with their choice.

Neither side would be completely satisfied, but it's the best compromise I've heard.

The more religious among us should acknowledge that the church/state separation protects the believers as much as the non-believers. How would they like the government to tell them how to practice their faith?

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
How about striking the GOVERNMENT out of MARRIAGE !

Government should not be involved in personal, consensual, loving relationships!


Marriage carries certain legal connotations, so the government has to be involved.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
You are all having a mighty fine time patting yourselves on the back about this one, aren't you?

The fact is that someone doesn't have to be a "religious nutjob" as the term goes around here to disagree with gay marriage. A person doesn't have to subscribe to Judeo-Christian dogma to feel that allowing any two cohabiting adults to have the same rights as those who actually took vows with the intent of keeping them and who have the guillotine of divorce (read financial ruin) hanging over their heads; who can't just move out when they feel the relationship has run its course.

Considering "domestic partmership" to be the equal to marriage should be insulting to anyone who has taken marriage vows. Marriage is meant to be a much more serious commitment than just finding a roommate so you can get dental coverage and a tax break.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Honestly though what do the religious have to gain from the fight. I've often wondered why the religious seem so concerned with the relationships and sexual orientation of other people. I think this proposal is a pretty smart idea, I doubt it will shut either side of the debate up, however. Many religious people will likely claim that renaming marriage a "domestic partnership" doesn't mean its no longer marriage.

Separation of Church and State should prevail, creating two separate versions. Marriage for the religious, and some form of Civil Union for those who want their relationship state verified.

I find the whole gay marriage debate to be absurd, what business is it of these religious groups what other free individuals want to do? Seems to me if Christians actually listened to this Jesus fellow they're all so crazy about they might want to worry about the log in their own eye before picking the speck out of the eyes of others. This country was supposedly founded on freedom and yet the older I get the more I realize how truly tiny a box freedom has been placed in. Apparently freedom is redefined as "The Freedom to move around in this tiny little box we've set up, for doing anything outside the box you have to have government permission, and make sure you're not offending anyone, and etc"



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join