Proposition 8 in California

[mr_genius]

It is the one thing that drives me crazy about the Republicans. They can shove their "evangelical morality" and trying to tie government to it, right up their rear ends, because it has no business in government at all.

 

It's the single biggest area that they need to improve on, besides the stupidity of the Bush spending sprees.

 

agreed. in full.

Edited October 28, 2008 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

 

I'm just telling you what their side is trying to say. They would also argue that persons marry multiple persons would be the next step in the degredation of marriage after same sex persons marrying same sex persons.

 

So calm down, it's not even my view of the situation. someone asked what their whole point is and I'm am merely responding to that question.

 

I understood what you were saying, and I agree with you.

 

Those who support prop. 8 and other laws like it typically rely on either religious arguments or ridiculous slippery slope arguments.

 

It is the one thing that drives me crazy about the Republicans. They can shove their "evangelical morality" and trying to tie government to it, right up their rear ends, because it has no business in government at all.

 

It's the single biggest area that they need to improve on, besides the stupidity of the Bush spending sprees.

 

I'll always have a hard time voting Republicans to national offices while the party contains a large dose of that element, and its one reason I was really, really turned off by the Palin pick.

Edited October 28, 2008 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

I understood what you were saying, and I agree with you.

 

Those who support prop. 8 and other laws like it typically rely on either religious arguments or ridiculous slippery slope arguments.

 

 

 

I'll always have a hard time voting Republicans to national offices while the party contains a large dose of that element, and its one reason I was really, really turned off by the Palin pick.

Question:

 

shouldn't this be something on the ballot and not passed by legislation? (sorry, this may be in the thread and I didn't read the entire thing).

 

[mr_genius]

Question:

 

shouldn't this be something on the ballot and not passed by legislation? (sorry, this may be in the thread and I didn't read the entire thing).

 

It's on the 2008 California General Election ballot.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I havent read any of the posts yet, but if this hasnt been mentioned yet, chew on this.

 

I was listening to TWiT just a few minutes ago and something interesting was brought up... if you vote yes to say no to gay marriage and no to say yes to gay marriage.

 

This could be messy. You are going to hear stories about people who voted no thinking it was a no vote on gay marriage.

[HuskyCaucasian]

btw- polling on Prop 8 is about tied right now. Tons of money is coming from Utah.

I never thought I would agree with a mormon.

[kapkomet]

It's on the 2008 California General Election ballot.

I know. My question is, isn't that where it really belongs, and not legislated?

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I know. My question is, isn't that where it really belongs, and not legislated?

I've thought for a while that too many important laws are passed without "approval" from the public. Yes we elect people to represent us, but in many ways they are using their own judgment. I tend to think the most important issues... like gay marriage... should get an up or down vote from every voting citizen.

[mr_genius]

I know. My question is, isn't that where it really belongs, and not legislated?

 

ah i see. i think the ballot vote is the way to go.

Edited October 29, 2008 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

Question:

 

shouldn't this be something on the ballot and not passed by legislation? (sorry, this may be in the thread and I didn't read the entire thing).

 

It is on the ballot. They passed one a few years ago but it was struck down as unconstitutional. These become law through a ballot measure.

 

That's another part of the "Yes on 8" campaign -- deriding judges for "thinking they know more than the people" when they overturn unconstitutional laws. Its as if they don't understand how our system of judicial review works.

 

I would tend to agree with putting these on the ballot instead of the hands of the legislature, but we must have strong judicial review to ensure that a simple majority cannot repress the minority.

Edited October 29, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I've thought for a while that too many important laws are passed without "approval" from the public. Yes we elect people to represent us, but in many ways they are using their own judgment. I tend to think the most important issues... like gay marriage... should get an up or down vote from every voting citizen.

But you know what? When you leave everything open to the public, you just make a mess. Unfortunately, that's what this state is in right now and a big reason for it is the ballot initiative system. When the legislature writes a law, yes it's open to lobbyists, malarkey, earmarks, whatever, but at some level at least it winds up being a law that is put together and negotiated and can even be changed if necessary. The initiative system out here has, for example, written things like mandatory spending on education and totally obscure property tax codes in to the state's constitution, and it has helped build in a budget deficit and gridlock that the legislature pretty much can't overcome.

[HuskyCaucasian]

But you know what? When you leave everything open to the public, you just make a mess. Unfortunately, that's what this state is in right now and a big reason for it is the ballot initiative system. When the legislature writes a law, yes it's open to lobbyists, malarkey, earmarks, whatever, but at some level at least it winds up being a law that is put together and negotiated and can even be changed if necessary. The initiative system out here has, for example, written things like mandatory spending on education and totally obscure property tax codes in to the state's constitution, and it has helped build in a budget deficit and gridlock that the legislature pretty much can't overcome.

oh I'm not saying everything should get a vote. i think you showed that it can get too messy. There might be a halfway point where the legislature can simply say... "instead of us voting on this, let's let the people decide". Yea, it's dodging votes in many ways, but for MAJOR issues, i think it could work.

[Texsox]

Why should they care about what happens in California? This is a big issue to me because I just have no idea how people can be so close minded to something that has zero affect on their own lives. It really upsets me how people can be so adamantly against something that would make another person happy, while changing nothing in anyones lives.

 

The theory goes, you cannot live, for example, in a brothel, without being affected. Desensitization is a well studied part of the human experience and if we keep surrounding ourselves with immoral acts we all become immoral. Good decent people, for example, supported the Nazis because the Nazis were woven into the fabric of the society. We accept sixteen year-olds pregnant and then we have more sixteen year-old pregnancies.

[Balta1701]

The theory goes, you cannot live, for example, in a brothel, without being affected. Desensitization is a well studied part of the human experience and if we keep surrounding ourselves with immoral acts we all become immoral. Good decent people, for example, supported the Nazis because the Nazis were woven into the fabric of the society. We accept sixteen year-olds pregnant and then we have more sixteen year-old pregnancies.

So, did you just compare tolerating homosexuals to tolerating the mass murder of Jews?

[BigSqwert]

I tend to think the most important issues... like gay marriage... should get an up or down vote from every voting citizen.

 

Aren't important issues subjective? Gay marriage could be completely irrelevant to a large portion of the electorate.

[BigSqwert]

The theory goes, you cannot live, for example, in a brothel, without being affected. Desensitization is a well studied part of the human experience and if we keep surrounding ourselves with immoral acts we all become immoral. Good decent people, for example, supported the Nazis because the Nazis were woven into the fabric of the society. We accept sixteen year-olds pregnant and then we have more sixteen year-old pregnancies.

 

Huh? So if this law passes gay people will cease to exist?

[Texsox]

So, did you just compare tolerating homosexuals to tolerating the mass murder of Jews?

 

I thought I was quite clear that I was only trying to explain why SOME PEOPLE believe they should be involved in something that does not affect them.

 

The Sodom and Gomorrah elements make, FOR SOME, the same annihilation threat real. A society that allows such sin to be accepted casts their lot like the inhabitants of Sodom.

[Texsox]

I guess I wasn't quite clear enough. These are NOT MY VIEWS, I was just trying to explain why some people care about things that will not affect themselves directly. So if someone would like to challenge the exact view find someone with those views and challenge them. If after 6 years of posting here anyone thinks I would not support gay marriage then they can't comprehend very well.

 

How about this example, I donate to a charity that helps abandoned kids in Oakland because I believe it will make Oakland a better place to live. I don't live there, do not really plan on living there, if it is a better or worse place, it will not affect me. But I do because I think if we make Oakland better we make California better. We make California better we make the US better. We make the US better, and we make the planet better.

[NorthSideSox72]

 

I'm just telling you what their side is trying to say. They would also argue that persons marry multiple persons would be the next step in the degredation of marriage after same sex persons marrying same sex persons.

 

So calm down, it's not even my view of the situation. someone asked what their whole point is and I'm am merely responding to that question.

Sorry mr g, I wasn't meaning to snap at you. My CAPS were meant to show the key words involved, not to denote volume. My bad.

 

[southsider2k5]

This is exactly what happens when the government gets in the business of legislating morals of any kind. My point of view is that marriage should not be left up to government. They have offered all of these economic incentives to do things right (sound familiar in any other areas?) when it comes to family and marriage. Marriages should be a church institution, period. The government needs to worry about contract law. If two people want to enter into a partnership, the government has no business in stopping them. If two gay people want to spend their lives together, let them. If two straight people want to spend their lives together, let them. The thing that bothers me about the modern practice of Christianity, is that one of the big things in there is that we are not to judge. Even if I believe gay marriage is wrong, it is not up to me to pass judgement on those who practice it. The bible teaches that with as much wrong as I do, I have no room to talk, lest those same people pass judgement on my sins. If we were actually looking at true separation of church and state, marriage would not be a government sanctioned institution. Again these are the unintended consequeces of government interference in our lives.

[Texsox]

This is exactly what happens when the government gets in the business of legislating morals of any kind. My point of view is that marriage should not be left up to government. They have offered all of these economic incentives to do things right (sound familiar in any other areas?) when it comes to family and marriage. Marriages should be a church institution, period. The government needs to worry about contract law. If two people want to enter into a partnership, the government has no business in stopping them. If two gay people want to spend their lives together, let them. If two straight people want to spend their lives together, let them. The thing that bothers me about the modern practice of Christianity, is that one of the big things in there is that we are not to judge. Even if I believe gay marriage is wrong, it is not up to me to pass judgement on those who practice it. The bible teaches that with as much wrong as I do, I have no room to talk, lest those same people pass judgement on my sins. If we were actually looking at true separation of church and state, marriage would not be a government sanctioned institution. Again these are the unintended consequeces of government interference in our lives.

 

Why just two? Three or more people can own a business together and enter into other legal contracts.

 

While I certainly agree with your conclusion, the Christian argument is slightly off. Of course we are allowed to judge. We are allowed to lock people up for violating various laws. The best comparison I can come up with here is trespassing laws. Obviously when the earth was created, lines were not drawn and the real estate divided up. I don't think God intended NSS to have those 10 acres in New Mexico for his use only. We created that rule and our society accepts that and we pass judgement on those that dare to break that rule and trespass. I don't see it in conflict with Christian teachings.

 

I also believe this debate gets bogged down too much in semantically sleight of hand.

 

Marriage - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits.

Civil Union - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits.

 

The end result is the same. Most people are not fooled by that. The government has authorized certain individuals to judge that these two people as having entered a pairing. They authorized Judges and Clergy for example. In the laws eyes, they are the same already. Your benefits and legal rights do not change no matter who officiates. So I think if we try and fool the American public, it will make it harder to do, what I believe, is the right thing.

 

The goal is to give any two people the same rights and benefits of a pairing that any two other people get. Sex should be taken out of the equation. We should not care if a couple has or does not have sex within this legal contract. Sex should not be a factor at all. This should also allow brothers and sisters to share those rights and benefits, etc. And seriously, why should anyone care if a brother and sister are having sex? It doesn't affect anyone but themselves.

[southsider2k5]

Why just two? Three or more people can own a business together and enter into other legal contracts.

 

I used two here because, as I understand it, the Proposition eight proposal is dealing the marriage of two people. I thought it would be prudent to stay on subject.

[Texsox]

I used two here because, as I understand it, the Proposition eight proposal is dealing the marriage of two people. I thought it would be prudent to stay on subject.

 

Stay on subject? When has that ever happened?

 

I understand. Then you may wish to ignore most of what I just added. I was rambling.

[southsider2k5]

I also believe this debate gets bogged down too much in semantically sleight of hand.

 

Marriage - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits.

Civil Union - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits.

 

I disagree 100%. One is a result of church traditions, the other is a legal binding contract. Big difference IMO.

[StrangeSox]

My view is that marriage should be left to private institutions all together and that the government should only recognize civil unions.

 

But, as long as the government does recognize marriage, we should not be using religious beliefs to dictate morals to others.

 

Marriage - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits.

Civil Union - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits.

 

Doesn't this go back to the whole "separate but equal is not equal" thing?