<p>try being gay. that's one strike against you from the get go, because not everybody will be in support, whereas if you're straight, you're in safe territory...it disgusts me...except in san francisco, ALL are welcome :)</p>
<p>"Another example: Straight people, gay people, and EVERYBODY in between has sex, do they not? Do they not!!??? Aren't we all entitled to it? (nevermind the stupid blue laws in the south from the victorian era those hardly apply anymore.) So, then, why is something even lesser of a big deal, marriage, even a matter?"</p>
<p>Marriage is less of a deal than sex? I don't understand.</p>
<p>"What is it any of YOUR business what anybody else does?"</p>
<p>You're right, what is it the business of government in our personal affairs? They shouldn't have any labels for adults. That is, no civil union, no marriage. Most religions don't even recognize civil marriage as real marriage anyway.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, closed-minded =/= disagreeing with you. Perhaps if you explained the thought, it would be more convincing.</p>
<p>@42
Concorde here.
Piece of the California constitution:
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1%5B/url%5D">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1</a>
Full text of 2008.05.15 "On Marriage" Ruling, CA
<a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF%5B/url%5D">http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF</a></p>
<p>As Proposition 8 ("Marriage Amendment" when all the votes are counted) lacks a Notwithstanding clause, does not explicitly seek exemption from Sec.7 first used by the judges, cannot repeal any other part of the above-linked (for then it would definitively be a Revision), and does not move to attack the above-linked interpretation, it appears the following reasoning is technically canon:</p>
<p>Marriage is defined between a man and a woman (See Marriage Amendment/Proposition 8)
and hence per se violates the California Constitution } (See Sec. 1, Sec. 7
and hence cannot be endorsed by the State } and 2008.05.15 Ruling)
and hence the institution is not recognized in the State of California.</p>
<p>On the other hand, perhaps Federal Law would require CA to keep Marriage, and the Marriage Amendment's status stops it from changing previous laws, and its wording lacks a Notwithstanding, and on and on in circles.</p>
<p>Of course, while this would be a step in the directions of equality and limited government, we don't know what the court will actually do.</p>
<p>I don't have a background in law yet, so correct me if I have ignored some legal principle or precedent. I'm just taking the laws ad verbatim.</p>
<p>Gays are the new blacks.</p>
<p>I should have quoted this from the ruling...
[quote]
There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference
[/quote]
... Quagmire, unless the passage of Proposition 8 has changed the "state's general legislative policy and preference".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gays are the new blacks.
[/quote]
Well, the blacks had slavery and other things against them, so maybe this doesn't hold legally. I would agree in a nonlegislative sense (say, due to violence and repression).</p>
<p>@40 of course it's their right to (irrationally) think homosexuality is a sin but it isn't their right to impose that belief on others by taking away their rights using said belief</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gays are the new blacks.
[/quote]
Here is a short but sweet take on that:
The</a> Prop 8 Issue - Being Black and Gay Are Not The Same - iReport.com</p>
<p>uhmmm that guy's argument seems a little shaky at best.
i mean okay he's basically saying "i don't think you can compare the two because gays can pretend to be straight and blacks can't pretend to be white."
see not only is that not necessarily true but the underlying problem is still the same - a denial of fundamental rights to a group of people because of who they are.</p>
<p>Well while America is not a democracy, the democratic principle states that if more people vote for X, then X happens. While it is really baffling to me why more people vote to take away gay's rights, if thats what the majority wants than thats what it wants. Trends in American history show that people are moving towards supporting gay rights, which means that I think in my lifetime there will be many 'prop8s' that will be shot down. There has been a significant increase in sensitivity towards homosexuals since the 70s. America as a country has almost always sooner or later gravitated towards having the majority think along the rational, moral vein of thought, no matter no popular it is now days to rant about America's fubarness. It all comes down to whether or not you trust America's ability to gravitate towards what's right in the long term. I do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well while America is not a democracy, the democratic principle states that if more people vote for X, then X happens.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a doctrine used to direct the spirit and conduct of legislation and respect for initiatives.
In practice, those people have to be smart about the language they're voting on.
I recall that the American doctrine of Separation of Powers bestows the courts the prime cut in judicial review and protecting political minorities. ** They already declared the Queers a suspect class.** Prop 8 needed more procedures to intervene, as federal and state law put that right, and here too, the freedom to interpret equal protection clauses, as exclusive to the court.</p>
<p>In this case, we are dealing with a particularly confusing law. It does not ask for any barrier to Equal Protection and yet (from canon interpretations, eg in May) is not coherent with Equal Protection. One of them has to get subverted, but which one? Maybe the wording of the proposition may change 'in the spirit of the law' to explicitly override EP and avoid the conundrum (can they do that?), but then it's no longer an amendment! If the earlier article stands, then the earlier logic stands and the Marriage Amendment is empty text...</p>
<p>It has to be understood that nothing in Proposition 8 challenges the reasoning of the May decision. It has the effect of establishing a firewall/exception to avoid the the previous conclusion, but it needs much more than that to firewall/except itself from logical consequences when other laws interact with it.</p>
<p>Just a novice's rant... (I stand to be corrected).</p>
<p>Anyway, Proposition 8 has already gone into effect de facto. If that stands, Campaign for Californian Family (?) isn't attached to it as much as it was - and so may not necessarily earn the right to defend the legal challenges. If they claim that all the votes haven't been counted, so the state couldn't have written it in yet, then they're effectively saying their own proposal shouldn't be enforced yet, that is like asking for a hold on prop 8 (WHY does that Floridian Liberty Council thing think they're going to stay in the court?)... </p>
<p>... and if the court maintains its previous logic that conservative groups are not entitled to defend it, because 'they had no rights at stake' (or something like that, which is an argument the court used in May to kick out other conservative lobbyists from the defense) then it whittles down to Brown all alone to defend. He has publicly stated he's taking it up, and it appears he is under no unequivocal mandate to defend it vigorously.
[quote]
It all comes down to whether or not you trust America's ability to gravitate towards what's right in the long term. I do.
[/quote]
Tempted to agree</p>
<p>I may be lacking in political thought, but Prop 8 is definitely the RIGHT thing to do. Our country was based on the ideals of natural rights, God-given rights. According to God, to Christians, to the Bible, homosexuality is against natural laws, against the workings of God. Both spiritually, and physically. It is simple not NATURAL. Two males are not meant for each other, and two females are not meant for each other. They may experiment, but marriage is going too far, way too far. Plus, humans are NOT born with this trait, it is developed by the environment, by culture, by whatever encourages those filthy filthy ALIENS to develop such unnatural behaviors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our country was based on the ideals of natural rights, God-given rights. According to God, to Christians, to the Bible, homosexuality is against natural laws, against the workings of God. Both spiritually, and physically.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're completely misunderstanding the idea of natural rights. I dont' want to get into a long drawn out discussion here, but needless to say, natural rights have absolutely nothing to do with what someone thinks "god" said. Where does "god" say I have a right to keep and bear arms? or have the right to say whatever I want? or to be secure in my possessions?</p>
<p>And yet these rights exist - they exist because we are human beings; moral agents.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is simple not NATURAL. Two males are not meant for each other, and two females are not meant for each other. They may experiment, but marriage is going too far, way too far. Plus, humans are NOT born with this trait, it is developed by the environment, by culture, by whatever encourages those filthy filthy ALIENS to develop such unnatural behaviors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That last line is going way to far man. But once again, you are not understanding the history here. Or simple biology for that matter. Homosexuality was common and considered normal long before Christianity was around. Learn a little about Ancient and pre-historic times before you make these claims. Not to mention that such activity is common in most if not all animal species. Your claims don't hold much water...</p>
<p>I want to say tomjones is being facetious. Nobody could possibly type that last sentence without it dripping with sarcasm.</p>
<p>Trolllllling</p>
<p>So, tomjones, you do believe heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals, then? It disgusts me the lack of information in this world. Do you know there are many cases of homosexuality/bisexuality in the animal kingdom?! </p>
<p>Seed:</a> The Gay Animal Kingdom</p>
<p>Check that out. That should make you reevaluate your thoughts. I just can't stand how people nowadays have to go by a book that might as well be termed "Telephone: God's Diary version." It's so outdated and people still believe it. Yes there are probably good things from it, but people WAY misinterpret it. I'm sick of being chastised because of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I want to say tomjones is being facetious. Nobody could possibly type that last sentence without it dripping with sarcasm.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol now theres a fair point I didn't really consider in my bad mood yesterday</p>
<p>Here</p>
<p>msnbc.com</a> Video Player</p>
<p>This is the best link I've ever seen. This guy is amazing. Maybe he'll show all you religious fanatics how corrupt you've become.</p>
<p>tomjones must be trolling. I can't imagine anyone in college / with a college degree still believing that this country was founded as a Christian nation having anything to do with the Bible.</p>
<p>SheWired</a> - Article
this pretty much sums up this whole fiasco</p>
<p>Jeremy, I don't think TomJones knows what he's saying. Humans are humans no matter their color or race. Only difference is the culture and personal mentality.</p>
<p>You know, kinda like that woman that was murdered at a KKK function earlier. How loving.</p>
<p>Mentality makes ya or breaks ya.</p>