California Residents (Or anyone): Prop 8?

Pass prop 8 in november?

  • Yes (Stoping Gay marriage)

    Votes: 11 15.9%
  • No (keeping CA the way it is now.)

    Votes: 58 84.1%

  • Total voters
    69
Status
Not open for further replies.

IncompleteDude

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,083
Role
Private
The whole gay marriage thing is weird. Most the gay people I know have no intention of ever getting married. You'd think after fighting so hard they would take advantage of it, and sure some do, but most don't or so it seems to me. It seems like this is just a debate on principals rather than practicals.

Personally, I would like to see any legal definition of marriage abolished altogether. Sure you can have civil unions, but that would be no more than a device for tax purposes, with changeable contract clauses for child custody, ownership of property, relationship responsibilities and other details. To me marriage is a purely social institution, and out of the purview of government.
 

Grutzvalt

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,378
Role
Adult Baby
"PROTECT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!" WHAT THE F*** IS THERE TO PROTECT?! What I do with my life is no one else's business, and what it marries is MY business!
 

chevre

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,434
Role
Diaper Lover
Honestly, I'm ambivalent on the topic of gay marriage. I think it's fair that gays should have the same rights in terms of taxes, hospital visitation, and whathaveyou. On the other hand, many people don't see this as true marriage.

Like Incomplete Dude said.. I think the idea of marriage is mainly as a social institution. And, I think many people are not interested in changing its definition. From a social perspective, I don't have a problem with that -- in our society people already live by different definitions of things like morality, ethics, and proper conduct.

Of course, in the eye of the law all should be equal. I can see the point about abolishing the legal definition of marriage entirely, however I think it would never fly with the general populous. And as this referendum would suggest, some are not prepared to accept the government telling them they have to accept gay marriage, either.

If I lived in CA, I'm not really sure what I'd vote. In the end, it's really not a hot button issue for me.
 
Messages
1,113
Role
Other
I have a problem with the gay marriage became legal in California. Basically 4 people said gay marriage was legal and it became so.

What I would like to see is a major change in how marriage is handled by the government.

First the government would issue Civil Union Contracts, these would be between two consenting adults (personally I don't care about how many consenting adults it's between, but too many people do). These Contracts would be issued with either the current date, or a future date, as of that date the people would be legally considered partners for inheritance, insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc. All the current rights that marriage currently gives.

Second if you wish to married, they find themselves a clergyperson that is willing to marry them and tada they are married.
 

andysetra

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,407
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
Basically if a church (yes, there are some here that endorse gay marriages) or whoever is marrying the couple doesn't have a problem with it, then why should the government? This is simply the government trying to *ban* something that doesn't hurt anyone. If a religion doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, that's fine. No one should be forcing them. But taking away rights from people because their union would be viewed as 'morally wrong' by some people (I'm looking at you, bible belt...) is just sick.

This whole idea of 'protecting' the sanctity of marriage is such a crock of sh*t. Except for about 15% of marriages out there, marriage has already been destroyed. How many of you have divorced parents, parents who hate each other but are still married(*raises hand*). I think the best comment I heard on the subject was: "If gay people want to be as miserable as straight people, then why not let them?"

My 2 cents...from someone who has no interest in ever getting married :p
 

Ryan_d

Est. Contributor
Messages
280
Role
Diaper Lover
I have a problem with the gay marriage became legal in California. Basically 4 people said gay marriage was legal and it became so.

It was voted by 5 people just a BTW.

But also, when marriage between interracial couples was voted to be legal, it was voted 3 to 2 just like gay marriage is.... so unless you ahve a problem with
interracial marriage......
 

Pojo

Est. Contributor
Messages
5,920
Role
Private
I think they should be allowed to get married, but I don't think a priest has to marry a gay couple if they are uncomfortable about it
 

IncompleteDude

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,083
Role
Private
I think they should be allowed to get married, but I don't think a priest has to marry a gay couple if they are uncomfortable about it
Yes, I absolutely agree with that. Gay people should only be married in consenting churches or the courts.
 

Maverick

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,766
Role
Other
Definitely keep gay marriage. I don't see anything wrong with it. Screw traditional marriage. As time goes on, traditions become outdated, and this tradition is long outdated. Heterosexual couples are not higher or better than homosexual couples, so I don't see why homosexual couples deserve anything less than marriage.
 
Messages
297
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Carer
I think that with the fact that 50% of Marriages end in divorce why not let gay people marry maybe help improve that statistic.
 

Fire2box

Est. Contributor
Messages
10,934
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I live in California and I am of voting age this has been one of the biggest issues for me and maybe the hardest vote I had to decided in my life.

I HIGHLY disagree that 4 judges should of been able to overturn a law that was voted on by the California public back in 2000 or so. If a state wants to decide if gay people can marry then it should reflect all of the states voters not 4 people. So I would naturally support prop 8 getting on the ballot so we can decide on it as a whole state, yet again. Marriage is something to big for just FOUR people to decide for one of the most populated states in America.

That all being said so far I am voting Yes on prop 8 despite having gay friends who many have actually been highly good friends to me. The reason I am voting yes on it is since as a christian I think its naturally between a man and a woman. Also prop 8 passing does not stop gay people from doing civil unions which from as far as I can see and tell offer the exact same benefits as marriage.

So really me voting Yes on it is only about wording and my personal religion. Its not because I despise gay people or anything. Also so far Prop 8 is getting a yes lead in the polls from what I heard after their new TV spot ad and Spanish radio ad.
 

Chillhouse

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,000
Role
Diaper Lover, Carer
The reason I am voting yes on it is since as a christian I think its naturally between a man and a woman. Also prop 8 passing does not stop gay people from doing civil unions which from as far as I can see and tell offer the exact same benefits as marriage.
These are the only two sentences in your post that I don't agree with. I respect your religious views, and your church has the right the refuse marrying a gay couple. But we've got a bit of a problem when your religious views interfere with how the country is run. The US is a secular nation - one founded on the belief that anyone can believe in anything they want as long as it does not interfere with the government. Not everyone in your country is a Christian, so naturally not everyone is going to believe that homosexuals are unnatural. You have the right to believe in this, but you don't have the right to impose your beliefs on everyone else in the country/state. The whole reasons you Americans opposed the British was to get away from all this nonsense.
 

Vaultin

Contributor
Messages
207
Role
Diaper Lover
"traditional marriage" is the sale of your daughter to a young man for money or property when she is in her teens and the guy is your age (like 50).

Of course. If both parties can consent, they can do whatever.
 
Messages
1,113
Role
Other
It was voted by 5 people just a BTW.

But also, when marriage between interracial couples was voted to be legal, it was voted 3 to 2 just like gay marriage is.... so unless you ahve a problem with
interracial marriage......
In a 4-3 decision, the justices rule that people have a fundamental 'right to marry' the person of their choice and that gender restrictions violate the state Constitution's equal protection guarantee

I don't see how 4 = 5.

October 1 , 2008 will mark the 60th anniversary of the Perez v. Sharp decision, in which the California Supreme Court, in a 4-to-3 decision, became the first court in U.S. history to strike down race restrictions on marriage.

That would have been a 4-3 not 3-2.

Anyway the cases are not parallel, 9 states never had laws barring interracial marriage, 3 territories repealed their laws before becoming states, and another 8 states had already repealed their laws. So 20 States had no laws barring interracial marriage. After the California case another 12 states repealed laws before the Federal case in 1967, one state repealed their law when the Federal case started. The remaining 16 states had their laws declared unconstitutional after the Federal case. The Federal case was a 9-0 decision.
 

Darkfinn

Banned
Messages
3,676
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent,
I don't necessarily understand why gays want marriage. A civil union, sure... visitation rights and power of attourney... sure, healthcare benefits... sure, but something like 60% of marriages end in divorce now... I think it is the straight people who have destroyed it.
 

andysetra

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,407
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
I don't necessarily understand why gays want marriage. A civil union, sure... visitation rights and power of attourney... sure, healthcare benefits... sure, but something like 60% of marriages end in divorce now... I think it is the straight people who have destroyed it.
It's not about the same benefits, or the technical details on paper. It's about the idea of banning gay people from participating in an act that straight people take for granted. I don't care what religion you are, you can still get married if you're straight. Hell, you can get married in a drive through in Vegas. Where's the religious outrage with that? It should be a non issue. If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, that's prefectly alright. But to have the government ban it because of a certain religious belief is not the way the government is supposed to be run. I don't live in the U.S., but isn't there a whole thing about seperation of church and state? What about equal rights?

Gay marriage should be a non-issue, and the fact that it is really makes me sad about some people.
 
Messages
531
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I think gay marriage should be a non issue.

I don't really understand why people are upset about gays being granted the right to marry.

I know that there are portions of the christian bible that say homosexuality is a sin but so is divorce and I don't see anyone campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning that.
 
M

Mako

Guest
I agree, it IS a non-issue, and what certain people seem to forget, the governments job is also to protect minority's who are powerless to protect themselves from unjust discrimination. Interracial marriage faced much opposition as well, but you'll be hard pressed to find an intelligent argument against it, if one exists.

There frankly is no grounds to oppose gay marriage, thats right NO grounds.
-IF marriage is indeed a religious institution, then one should keep in mind the separation of church and state. By that i mean if marriage is solely a religious institution, then it should hold no bearing in law what so ever.
-IF marriage was solely a religious institution, then courts would not be able to perform them for stated reasons above.
-IF marriage was solely a religious institution, straight atheists and non-religious agnostics would not be able to marry.

Civil unions is a separate but equal policy, it's unacceptable. A words definition and range changes based upon its use and enactment over time. Marriage is beyond religion and has been for quite a long time. So lets grow up, and stop with the stupid semantics.
 
K

KittyKat

Guest
I know that there are portions of the christian bible that say homosexuality is a sin but so is divorce and I don't see anyone campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning that.
Only under certain circumstances is divorce a sin.

Anyways, I live in California and am going to vote YES on Prop 8. I believe that homosexuality is a condemnable sin, however I still would love gay people. I just don't agree with their lifestyle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top