Proposition 8 in California

[Soxy]

Why is it that my straight republican self is so up in arms over the fact that people are seriously still living in the stone-age and actually supported Prop 8. What a f***ing disgrace my state is.

Because you're a fiscally conservative (and at the moment slightly disenchanted) Republican who believes the government should not be involved in legislating "morality."

 

But, um, that's just a guess.

[Soxbadger]

I hate stuff like this. The reason people vote against is because they ask the question "Whats in it for me" and the answer comes out "nothing".

 

I think they need a new slogan that will make people realize that they do have something to gain by letting gay people vote:

 

Let them feel the pain of divorce too!

 

 

[kapkomet]

Because you're a fiscally conservative (and at the moment slightly disenchanted) Republican who believes the government should not be involved in legislating "morality."

 

But, um, that's just a guess.

[Rex Kickass]

This Prop 8 battle isn't over. It's just a shame that it's going to have to be won in the courts.

 

I'd say there's a 35-40% chance that Prop 8 will not be allowed to be implemented into the California constitution because of the way the decision to allow gay marriage was written. It can actually be thrown out, because if its viewed to be overly discriminatory and taking away rights on an unequal basis, it may be considered invalid.

[longshot7]

There's also 3-4 million absentee ballots to be counted.

[whitesoxfan101]

This Prop 8 battle isn't over. It's just a shame that it's going to have to be won in the courts.

 

I'd say there's a 35-40% chance that Prop 8 will not be allowed to be implemented into the California constitution because of the way the decision to allow gay marriage was written. It can actually be thrown out, because if its viewed to be overly discriminatory and taking away rights on an unequal basis, it may be considered invalid.

 

I completely agree with this post, but damn, that is going to get really ugly out there. The anti-gay, far right, "will of the people" folks are going to be out in force for that one. Very unfortunate that it has to come to that point.

[Chisoxfn]

Because you're a fiscally conservative (and at the moment slightly disenchanted) Republican who believes the government should not be involved in legislating "morality."

 

But, um, that's just a guess.

Touche

[mr_genius]

I'm not an expert on California Constitution Law or Ballots, but even if the courts uphold the vote can't the anti-Proposition 8 groups gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot in a couple years? It seem like these votes get closer and closer each cycle, I think the next time the result could be different.

[MurcieOne]

Because you're a fiscally conservative (and at the moment slightly disenchanted) Republican who believes the government should not be involved in legislating "morality."

 

But, um, that's just a guess.

 

That sums it up for me too... well put.

[Balta1701]

Something remarkable, either in a good way, or a bad way, seems to be taking shape out here. There have been spontaneous, unorganized demonstrations against prop 8 just randomly popping up, usually organized only through Facebook, with a couple thousand people showing up, happening here or in S.F. COuple arrests, the groups seemed quite angry at a mormon church for some reason.

[bmags]

I'm very happy we have judicial review.

[NorthSideSox72]

Something remarkable, either in a good way, or a bad way, seems to be taking shape out here. There have been spontaneous, unorganized demonstrations against prop 8 just randomly popping up, usually organized only through Facebook, with a couple thousand people showing up, happening here or in S.F. COuple arrests, the groups seemed quite angry at a mormon church for some reason.

OK, so, if the church in question did indeed funnel money for a political cause, doesn't that mean they should lose their tax-exempt status?

 

[Texsox]

OK, so, if the church in question did indeed funnel money for a political cause, doesn't that mean they should lose their tax-exempt status?

 

Then also take it away from the NRA, AARP, Heart Association, Salvation Army, American Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and especially the DNC and the RNC, and every other group of people who have tax-exempt status and try to influence voting through their members and through donations.

 

Remember the tax exempt status is a benefit to the people (voters) who donate money to those groups. We donate to those groups because we presumably agree with their mission and want to see that mission realized. Pursuing those ideals through legislative and political avenues is part of the Democratic process and exactly what people expect when, for example, they donate to the NRA.

 

Changes in laws is for some the greatest impact that a charity can achieve.

 

What you are suggesting is taking away YOUR* tax break for donating to those charities. Then, in taking away their tax break when purchasing goods and services, they would not be able to do as much with YOUR donation, meaning YOU would need to donated more dollars to have the same affect. I'm not certain there would be much support for that.

 

*Of course I use this generically.

[BigSqwert]

I'm I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the Mormons, who have a long history of polygamy, have pumped in tens of millions of dollars into this Prop?

[Texsox]

I'm I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the Mormons, who have a long history of polygamy, have pumped in tens of millions of dollars into this Prop?

 

Perhaps. The tenants of that religion are very much conservative family orientated. I can't think of a single LDS family I know who have been divorced. They spend a lot of time as a family and have some fairly strict rules in how families should operate. They offer a lot of programs for the family. polygamy is still between men and women. The irony would be that recognizing non traditional unions in this country would be a step towards polygamy. Why should the government care what consenting adults do in their own homes?

[YASNY]

Perhaps. The tenants of that religion are very much conservative family orientated. I can't think of a single LDS family I know who have been divorced. They spend a lot of time as a family and have some fairly strict rules in how families should operate. They offer a lot of programs for the family. polygamy is still between men and women. The irony would be that recognizing non traditional unions in this country would be a step towards polygamy. Why should the government care what consenting adults do in their own homes?

 

That's a point that I have long believed that a lot of people never considered. If the argument is that people should be able to marry who they want, why should they be limited to just one spouse?

[Texsox]

That's a point that I have long believed that a lot of people never considered. If the argument is that people should be able to marry who they want, why should they be limited to just one spouse?

 

Or, as I have said before, why should sex, or the potential for sex, matter? If what we are talking about here are certain legal rights and benefits, shouldn't a brother and sister be able to enjoy those rights? Perhaps a parent and child? We are talking after all, two people who wish to enjoy the legal benefits and protections that a union allows. Why should anyone, especially the government, care who shares these benefits?

[Cknolls]

rtgrthtjhwryjhnwythrtw;gpkqer

fpo

[NorthSideSox72]

rtgrthtjhwryjhnwythrtw;gpkqer

fpo

fpo you too!!!

 

[Cknolls]

Didn't the California Supreme Court o.k. the wording of the proposition a couple of months ago in a 4-3 decision? And if so, how silly will they look if they overrule themselves within months of oking the measure. Granted this is California.

[YASNY]

Or, as I have said before, why should sex, or the potential for sex, matter? If what we are talking about here are certain legal rights and benefits, shouldn't a brother and sister be able to enjoy those rights? Perhaps a parent and child? We are talking after all, two people who wish to enjoy the legal benefits and protections that a union allows. Why should anyone, especially the government, care who shares these benefits?

 

 

Ok, I'm waiting for responses to our posts. Should be interesting.

[Soxy]

PA actually brought this point up in another thread. He said that his grandmother and her sister would really benefit from having some sort of legal union between them.

 

The truth is, I think we need to get away from this idea of government sanctioned "marriage" as we would think about religious "marriage." The government really has no right to say what legal aged consenting adults you may enter into a contract with.

[YASNY]

PA actually brought this point up in another thread. He said that his grandmother and her sister would really benefit from having some sort of legal union between them.

 

The truth is, I think we need to get away from this idea of government sanctioned "marriage" as we would think about religious "marriage." The government really has no right to say what legal aged consenting adults you may enter into a contract with.

 

Then basically, you are talking about a civil union if you are talking contract. So why not let a marriage be defined as religious union, and a contracted union be what it is but with equal rights under the law for types of union?

[BearSox]

PA actually brought this point up in another thread. He said that his grandmother and her sister would really benefit from having some sort of legal union between them.

 

The truth is, I think we need to get away from this idea of government sanctioned "marriage" as we would think about religious "marriage." The government really has no right to say what legal aged consenting adults you may enter into a contract with.

So, by your point of view, would it be okay for a brother and sister to have children, even though their kids would very much likely be deformed?

[Texsox]

PA actually brought this point up in another thread. He said that his grandmother and her sister would really benefit from having some sort of legal union between them.

 

The truth is, I think we need to get away from this idea of government sanctioned "marriage" as we would think about religious "marriage." The government really has no right to say what legal aged consenting adults you may enter into a contract with.

 

On the surface that sounds great. Actually we have given the government the right to determine what a contract is. Think about how contracts are enforced and by who in a modern society. The government determines what a legal age is. The determine what is and is not, an allowable contract.

 

And also you are smacking up against the notion that current and future marriages must somehow be changed or altered to make room for a new style of "marriage" in America. ain't.gonna.happen.