Prop 8

[AllergyDoc]

I guess AD's against blowjobs?

You can be a [derogatory term for penis--damn censors!] and I think you're a lefty nutjob, but that was damn funny.

Okay, so that wasn't boring, either.

No Dem.., uh, Chancellor, I'll be going to bed chuckling. My wife will be, "what now?"

Good to read your posts, too.

John, the new board?

Wait a minute. BJ's have nothing to do with anal sphincters...

Do they?

Edited November 11, 2008 by AllergyDoc

[AllergyDoc]

Just as well, I'm not here to entertain you. Though, if you really didn't care you wouldn't be replying so much.

Is marriage a 'normal' institution or is it a social tradition? Is monogamy normal or is it, again, a social tradition? If so, why do you find yourself checking out other women, sexually, even though you're happily married? If monogamy was hard-wired into our genetics, meaning one partner, the same partner, for the rest of your life why would people get divorces? At one time divorce was a huge moral hurdle, but today it's common. Point is, even if something is ''abnormal'', like you claim homosexuality to be, why is it a negative? We've established that your point is that homosexuality is negative, I'm more interested on hearing why.

Although, I will say it is normal to want to pleasure the person you love or are attracted to sexually and receive sexual pleasure in return. Sex in general is good, apparently. Anal sex is enjoyed by many straights, male and female, many don't enjoy it. If the only purpose of sex is for procreation, how is it possible that you still want to have sex after your prime? Is that normal? If you've taken so many science classes, which I'm sure were very in-depth with human sexuality and sexual psychology, you'd probably know about the male prostate and it's relation to the g-spot. It may not relate to human reproduction, but I'm not sure how that's relevant in creating social and ethical policy. I've never mentioned once that everyone enjoys anal sex or that everyone is gay. I did mention that human sexuality is fluid, as you've quoted above. It's possible to be attracted to a member of your same sex. Does that mean you're gay? I don't know, thought probably not. I didn't coin restrictive sexual terms like gay or straight. You've also backed my point up by saying that you were concerned that a child could be taught to experiment sexually by a teacher. Does this mean that a child can be taught to be attracted to men? If so, does that imply that perhaps a solidly defined line of sexuality is hardwired into our genetic code? None of us can answer these questions without giving personal opinion.

Simply because a heterosexual doesn't want to have sex with another man doesn't mean that the act itself is abhorrent. The context that you're using 'normal and abnormal' here is maybe being misunderstood by both sides?

Jake seems to have a misunderstanding on what homosexuality even is, so I'd press him or her to read further into it and self-educate. Desire for anal-sex does not make one gay. No Jake. Sorry.

Hate and disagreement are significantly different. Now, onto the topic of other misogynistic, socially backward, ancient and superstitious religions. I don't hate christians or jews or muslims. I disagree with them on some points of the human condition and morality. I didn't mention Islam or Judaism because they have very little impact on public policy and represent an insignificant portion of the population, I didn't think it relevant, and assumed that my condemnations of intolerance would cover them also. I guess one can't make assumptions. I can respect the moderates who choose not to force their own belief system on others, be them jew muslim or christian. IDK, really. Believe whatever the [censored] you want to believe. I'll also refrain from going on an anti-muslim, jew, hindu, sikh or any other religious rant simply because i don't think its necessary. I could, but I won't. Youtube Pat Condel for someone who share's similar beliefs to myself concerning those religions. In public conversation I'm even more critical of contemporary islam than I am of contemporary christianity, simply because islam has not been able to modernize half as well as christianity has to western moral ideals. I'm not a cultural relativist, for the tenth time. I believe one culture can have a better set of morals and values than another. We don't institutionalize public stoning of women, execution of homosexuals or mandatory prayer, though some cultures do. Do I think we're better? In the mentioned respects, yes. Is that because of christianity? No, it's in spite of it.

If homosexuality is pushed to the corners of mainstream society, where it's not ok to be gay, they'll be increasingly pushed into the underground like it was in the '80s, where they'll be forced by social stigma to sexual promiscuity. Many young gay men are sexually promiscuous, it's a fact and it's dangerous for spreading STDs. But does that mean it's the fault of these men, or can blame be shared by larger society, which places a sigma on homosexuality? If homosexuality is embraced, celebrated and accepted into mainstream society, as it was in ancient Greece and Rome, you'll find a decrease in homosexual promiscuity and in increase in monogamy. The arguments for gay adoption seem not to center on the couple themselves, but on how larger society would treat the youth. It's unfortunate, it really is.

My final point before I'm done: It's not enough to just disagree with something like homosexuality just 'because'. Not when it impacts so many lives. Keep religious marriage to the church and allow gays and non-religious a legal equivalent.

When you're not resorting to name calling, you ask good, and difficult or thought provoking questions. I'd like to give some of these some careful thought and answer when I'm not so tired. (After midnight here.)

[JohnG]

I can understand how it may seem abrasive. This is the problem with the democrats and those on the left. If they just act politely then perhaps the other side will come around. It just reminds me of the term "don't be an uppity negro" a little too much. This is why I admire folks like Bill Maher, Dan Savage, and Keith Olberman.

"Don't be an uppity negro"?

If you want to preach to the choir, you have the correct tone. If you want to persuade those that have different views, what I am suggesting is not "don't be uppity" - it is plain old common sense. Treat people with respect and they are more likely to listen to your words. Are you REALLY disputing this point? If your inclination is to reply, "but THEY are not being respectful!" stop for a moment and reflect on how childish that sounds.

Should one stand idly by because to criticize is improper or impolite?

I hope you are not suggesting that I said that, because I most certainly did NOT.

Now,

We've got one side who's principal philosophy is devoted to condemning others who don't follow their lifestyle to literally burning in the fires of Hell for eternity.

This generalization is as simplistic as it is incorrect. The evangelical Christian population in California is NO WHERE NEAR large enough to explain the passage of Prop 8. If you want to understand what happened in California you are going to have to think a little more.

It's obvious that I'll never convince a Christian that their faith is based on ancient traditions that have little to no intellectual or moral currency in society, nor is that my mission.

And why would you want to? I thought we were talking about same sex marriage, not debunking an entire religion.

I simply see something that's unjust and I'm calling it out. I have no investment in being nice to someone who is blindly opposed to the lifestyle of my friends and family members simply on account on 'seemin nice'. For too long the left has had to apologize to the right for having different views.

I know a lot of Democrats and I don't know any that apologize for their views. Where the hell are you getting this nonsense?

It's unfortunate that terms like bigot and fear-monger (may have made an implication, not sure if I used the term) are being used, granted. However, to avoid the terms in favor of less-honest and euphemistic terms is, in my opinion, demeaning. I hate to say it, but sometimes people or groups are bigots and fear mongers.

Sometimes people are bigots and fear mongers, sure. But you don't know AllergyDoc well enough to make that accusation. Those are conclusions you are basing on nothing more than YOUR own prejudices and preconceptions.

The McCain campaign was calling Obama a socialist, muslim (as if that's worse or better than being a christian), communist, unAmerican , and continuously questioned his patriotism.

Well I voted for Obama, but your statement is factually incorrect. The McCain campaign did NONE of those things.

Ideally I'd be friendly and ''aw you hate gays? that's cool!"

More nonsense. No one here, myself least of all, has suggested you do this.

If you just want to rant to listen to yourself, go right ahead. But don't kid yourself that what you are doing is any different than what you accuse others of. Intolerance. Intolerance, no matter what end of the political spectrum it comes from, does not advance mutual understanding, dialog, or social change. It impedes it. If you want to effect change, you will need to go about it differently. But if you just want to feel smug in your own form of self-righteous indignation, then you are closer in mind-set to your foes than you will ever realize.

[JohnG]

On the first page of this thread I commented "Isn't it amazing that when self professed "tolerant" people are exposed to a point of view different then their own, they immediately become intolerant and try and belittle the opposing point of view though the use of name calling?

...Five pages later here and it seems there were plenty of people willing to illustrate my point by exposing their own refusal to engage in any meaningfully exchange of ideas without the name calling.

That I can see, Downtown is the only one using the terms bigot or homophobe to describe those that disagree with him.

The other posters, like myself, who support the gay community's struggle for equal recognition under the law, have been respectful.

Your post is no more accurate in characterizing the opposition than any of Downtown's.

[downtown]

JohnG, I think you're missing the point of a lot of what I've said. Yeah, I'm being 'mean' but frankly I don't care. It doesn't matter that I'm ''preaching to the choir'' instead of trying to convince a conservative into liberalism, which I've said before isn't going to happen on an internet message board. I'm not too concerned with offending any of the conservatives here because I don't think I'd be able to. I might not be smart enough or articulate enough.

As for my use of the term 'homophobe' which i only found in two instances, which i still stand by, which term should those who don't like homosexuals be granted? if i don't like wide-open spaces i'm an agoraphobe, if i don't like spiders i'm an arachnophobe, if i don't like homosexuals i'm a 'good ol' boy'. fine by me.

As for disputing that christians believe people like gays, atheists and non-christians are going to hell.

-Really? You don't think most christians think hell is a literal place and that those groups are probably gunna end up there? I sincerely hope you're right, because it makes awkward for conversation.

b. the left and democrats have been apologetic in the past.

-sorry, but the democrats don't represent the left of the country. they may in a two party system, but not on the street. this is why i separated them. it's also just as extreme to say that none apologize. i'm not going to bother laying out instances of this because i'm sure you could look them up yourself. see: civil rights movement, vietnam war protests, etc.

c. "Those are conclusions you are basing on nothing more than YOUR own prejudices and preconceptions."

*sigh* re-read my posts, sir. this time without an angry scowl on your face. not even going to touch this one. there's a different between prejudice and judging. i did the latter.

d. the obviously %100 positive McCain which clearly never made ANY implication or indirect association that Obama was a terrorist, socialist or unAmerican.

If you're sincerely telling me that the McCain staff didn't have an awkward and embarrassing campaign centered around Bill Ayers, Joe the Plumber, that "distribute the wealth" [sic. socialist/communist] nonsense, then you're just being thoughtless.

anyway, offer an idea rather than just discuss the ones already down here.

[downtown]

That I can see, Downtown is the only one using the terms bigot or homophobe to describe those that disagree with him.

I suggest you 'see' harder.

[JohnG]

JohnG, I think you're missing the point of a lot of what I've said. Yeah, I'm being 'mean' but frankly I don't care.

Finally, some honesty.

[Dexter]

Ok, so maybe we can give gays the same legal civil union, tax benefits, etc. as a man-woman union, but reserve the sacred (to some) term "marriage" for a man and woman?

BTW, I'm from California too and voted No on 8.

That's what I think also.

[AllergyDoc]

That's what I think also.

Me too. But that's not what they want nor would they ever settle for it, unless they were just using it as a stepping stone towards their ultimate goal of forced acceptance and a silencing of all opponents.

[downtown]

To something like that? Yeah. Kind of a distraction from things that really matter like war and violence and the economy, eh.

[RLudlowe]

To fight over the term "marriage" is something that will be the roadblock for a long, long time...

To me it's a lot like saying that Blacks are allowed to own cars......but only as long as they call them motorcycles.

If you set up a separate name structure you create a second-class citizen status.

That's not the American way.

[AllergyDoc]

My opinions and feelings about homosexuality stems from my religious upbringing. I've kept words like "sin" and "morally wrong" out of my arguments in an effort to talk about homosexuality as a social issue.

Although I'm Christian, I don't identify with the so-called "Christian Right" on many issues. I find many of them pompous. Religion should never be forced or coerced onto anyone. The greatest gift God gave us is our agency--the ability to choose for ourselves the path we'd like to follow. (We cannot, however, choose the consequences, but that's a whole different subject.)

Another area I disagree with the CR is how they teach creationism. Matter can neither be created or destroyed, it can just be organized. God didn't "create" the Earth out of nothing in 6 literal days. He organized existing matter into the planet we now live on. In the Greek manuscripts of the Bible, the word "create" means "organize." My personal opinion (not official church doctrine) is that the "days" spoken of in Genesis should be thought of as periods of time rather than a 24 hour cycle as we understand it. Said "days" could have taken millions of years. Lastly, I believe Adam had a belly button, with all that implies. The CR thinks he was literally stirred up out of dust, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I was taught, and believe, that homosexuality is fornication: having sex with someone you're not married to. Therefore it's a sin. This is why I said I would have equally upset at my sister's decision to boot her faithful husband out if she had decided to shake up with a younger man. In mine they're similar sins. (Adultery is much worse, of course.) This is your "why" about my opinions about homosexuality being negative.

As to whether monogamy, or even marriage, is "normal" or "hard-wired" into humans, I don't know. But it's the way we've lived pretty much throughout all of recorded history. At least when we've behaved in a somewhat "civilized" manner. I believe monogamous marriage is the way God wants and has commanded us to live because it's the only way to true happiness. To live otherwise usually causes broken hearts, misery, and sorrow. In my opinion.

Why do happily married men check out other women? I've been taught and believe that mankind, left to his own base desires, untethered by "commandments" or rules, would follow a path offensive to God. As I've said, I believe God gives us rules for our own happiness. But I admit it's a constant struggle. When a young woman wearing a miniskirt strolls by I will usually look at her. But it's what happens afterwards that makes all the difference. If I avert my eyes and clear my mind, I'm okay. Probably. But if I continue to stare, whistle, and then make her the subject of a shower fantasy, I've committed adultery in my mind, haven't I? Definitely not okay. If I chase her down, get her phone number, and have an affair with her, even worse.

The base urges you've asked about can be corralled and controlled. They don't have to be given in to. Just as homosexual urges don't have to be given in to. Neither does the urge to drink or gamble have to be given in to. Thus my use of that analogy.

I don't believe that sex is only for procreation. It also helps to emotionally bind a man to a woman, and vice versa. What said man and woman do in their bedroom is, in my opinion, between them and God, as along as it's just between the two of them.

I never said a child would be taught to experiment with homosexual, or heterosexual, sex by a teacher in a classroom. I said I don't want teachers telling young children that homosexual relationships are the same thing as heterosexual relationships because I don't believe they are. I don't want a teacher telling my children it's okay to have premarital sex or to live with someone out of wedlock, either. It's the same thing to me.

I found it interesting when you wrote that gays are "forced" to be promiscuous by society. Even if society "pushed them back into the closet," why can't gays remain faithful to one partner? I'm not seeing any connection there.

Also, I find it interesting, but not surprising, that gays are out in force, protesting in front of the church of a vocal white preacher, spray painting vulgarities on Mormon chapels, and chucking rocks through the windows of other "white" Christian churches, but are leaving the black churches alone. It appears that about 11 million people voted in CA. About 10% were said to be black, up from 6%. That's 1.1 million. 70% of the blacks voted for Prop. 8. That's a little over 700,000. Yes on Prop 8 got 500,000 more votes than no. That's more than enough to swing the vote to the Yes side. Willie Brown said the blacks voted for Prop 8 because their preachers told them that's what God wanted them to do. Gay activists should be targeting the black voters and churches because without them Prop 8 would have failed. Can't do that, though, can they? Instead, gay activists are calling for a boycott of Utah ( wonder how the gays in Utah feel about that) because the Mormon Church headquarters there, although the Mormon Church didn't give any money to Yes on Prop 8, and a little theatre in Sacramento because the guy who owns the theatre gave $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

[jake48]

Doc - You are just going to have to quit posting posts like the one above. It makes too much sense and isn't the shrill scream that we all know conservatives are guilty of

Six pages now and I still see myths being perpetrated here...

MYTHS

1. People who voted for Prop 8 took away someone's rights - Prop 8 did not take anything away- Prop 8 PUT BACK what has been the standard of marriage in California since the states inception. A single Liberal activist Judge is the one who took something away, and that would be the will of the people in California, when OVERWHELMINGLY in 2000, the Defense of Marriage Act - Proposition 22 was passed into law by the VOTE of the people of California. This proposition quite simply read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Edited November 11, 2008 by jake48

[JohnG]

I certainly have my ideas as to why gays pursue their agenda, but given that people here can not even acknowledge known facts (see above) how could we ever have a civialized discussions regarding such emotional issues such as religion, sexual/physical/emotional abuse, psychiatric condition, sexuality, genetics, personal choice and personal responsibility as it relates to the gay lifestyle vs the heterosexual lifestyle?

So what you are saying is, until people recognize that you are right about everything above, there can be no civilized discussion.

Nonsense. There already is a civilized discussion here. I am engaging in it. So is Doc. So are others.

Why don't you and Downtown go start your own thread - you two were made for each other.

[old skool]

As expected, this discussion of legal issue has degraded into personal attacks and general argument about completely tangential issues.

Your list of "Myths" is again, another personal opinion that is skewed towards your perception.

The beauty of our system of government, when it is working correctly is to check and balance society with the laws of the land. California's constitution required that all citizens receive equal treatment under the law. The SC protected the minority from the majority as it was intended to do. The citizens have a right to amend the constitution, but it is sad to those who value liberty that they chose to use it to limit rights rather than to affirm rights. This is a new precedent which in my opinion is dangerous.

Doc - You are just going to have to quit posting posts like the one above. It makes too much sense and isn't the shrill scream that we all know conservatives are guilty of

Six pages now and I still see myths being perpetrated here...

MYTHS

1. People who voted for Prop 8 took away someone's rights - Prop 8 did not take anything away- Prop 8 PUT BACK what has been the standard of marriage in California since the states inception. A single Liberal activist Judge is the one who took something away, and that would be the will of the people in California, when OVERWHELMINGLY in 2000, the Defense of Marriage Act - Proposition 22 was passed into law by the VOTE of the people of California. This proposition quite simply read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

[AllergyDoc]

Examples include women's rights, the rights of black people, etc. There was a time when those groups were not allowed the same rights and the majority was happy with this arrangement. They passed laws and the judges of the time went along with it. That didn't and doesn't make it right. Even through all this, no constitutions were amended to remove equality under the law. Prohibition follows this pattern however, and it is an embarrassment to this day.

But now you're talking about real rights. Voting, particularly. You said marriage wasn't a right so this argument doesn't apply here.

I've already established the government DOES limit rights as society sees fit. We don't allow plural marriage. We don't allow multiple partner marriage of any type. Can't marry the underage, etc. Let's not hear "but these are proven to be negative... blah blah." Society determines what is bad or harmful for itself all the time, what groups get what preferential treatment, etc.

If you say gay marriage must be allowed because they are a minority that is to be protected under equal treatment law in the CA constitution, then it MUST also grant marriage to other minority groups that apply for the right to marry. To do anything other is to deny the same rights. As I said, it's a slippery slope.

The question is, in my mind, has society decided to grant marriage licenses to same sex partners? No, it hasn't, but democratic vote in all 30 states that have voted on it.

[JohnG]

But now you're talking about real rights.

Just FYI guys... rights are whatever the state says they are. We are talking legal rights here (not abstract "divine rights" which you could argue about for the next century and not arrive at a satisfactory definition of). If prop 8 had been defeated, same-sex marriage WOULD be a right in the state of California.

The state is not permitted to arbitrarily deny marriage to a heterosexual couple. With a few very limited exceptions (close relatives, minor/adult, etc...) a marriage license is an entitlement granted by the state, and therefore a RIGHT. At the moment, it is not a right for homosexuals, but one for which they are fighting.

[old skool]

But now you're talking about real rights. Voting, particularly. You said marriage wasn't a right so this argument doesn't apply here.

I am sorry that you are confused by what I am saying. I will try to make it more clear.

Voting isn't an inalienable right. It isn't life, liberty or property. One might argue that it is part of pursuit of happiness. But if that is the case, then so would marriage for gay people.

What I am talking about is equality under the law. Equality for women and black people to vote as well as gay people. Because black people were not allowed to vote and that was upheld by the SC, a constitutional amendment was required to make it clear. I believe that the constitution always allowed for women and black people to vote. (The whole "all men are created equal" bit.) However, the people at the time including the SC judges were not interested in following the constitution. The amendment made up for this. What we have in CA is the opposite.

I've already established the government DOES limit rights as society sees fit. We don't allow plural marriage. We don't allow multiple partner marriage of any type. Can't marry the underage, etc. Let's not hear "but these are proven to be negative... blah blah." Society determines what is bad or harmful for itself all the time, what groups get what preferential treatment, etc.

You seem to believe that any slice of opinion in any part of the country at any given time = absolute truth. I find this to be faulty logic.

In reality, the majority of this country believes that gay people should have equal legal rights to marriage. The issue is surrounding the word marriage is a muddy mess of emotion. This makes discussing the issue and arriving a consensus difficult, especially when you have people paying for advertisements that are not entirely factual.

The problem is that separate but equal is un-American. That has been proven to be true over time based on this country's history. The problem is that people have a hard time reconciling that with their dislike of gay people. I don't see any issue personally because words will never hurt me, to borrow a childhood saying. The problem is that the word marriage is no longer a religious term because it is used by the secular government to describe a legal contract that has nothing to do with any church. That is the part that people refuse to grasp and why they don't understand the argument about equal rights for gay people and why the discussion of law and constitutionality always turns into mudslinging and argument about religion and opinion.

If you say gay marriage must be allowed because they are a minority that is to be protected under equal treatment law in the CA constitution, then it MUST also grant marriage to other minority groups that apply for the right to marry. To do anything other is to deny the same rights. As I said, it's a slippery slope.

No it isn't. You really are failing to see this, perhaps on purpose? Gay people are by definition attracted to the same sex. They are a minority but they are also equal citizens and deserve equal treatment under the law. It comes down to two consenting adults.

There are legal reasons for excluding polygamy which has nothing to do with religious morals. This is made particularly clear by the insistence of the Mormon church to allow for it. I personally couldn't care less if a man could marry multiple men or women. When it comes to taxes though and legal rights, the government said no. Again, it is not based on personal moral opinion.

As for marrying children, well that has a long history of practice. In fact, in many places, minors can be married with parental consent. This is not a minority group. It is also a legal situation where the government can't allow a minor to be a consenting adult. This protects the child.

The question is, in my mind, has society decided to grant marriage licenses to same sex partners? No, it hasn't, but democratic vote in all 30 states that have voted on it.

This isn't relevant. Again, how many times do I have to repeat that 'society' has long perpetuated atrocities? It is a failed argument that is only adopted as a last recourse when no other logical argument can be found.

[JohnG]

I am sorry that you are confused by what I am saying. I will try to make it more clear.

Voting isn't an inalienable right. It isn't life, liberty or property.

Neither is property.

I believe that the constitution always allowed for women and black people to vote. (The whole "all men are created equal" bit.) However, the people at the time including the SC judges were not interested in following the constitution. The amendment made up for this. What we have in CA is the opposite.

Pardon me, but this is completely inaccurate. There is ZERO evidence that the framers intended for blacks to vote. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the CONTRARY. THAT is why the Constitution had to be amended - not to "clarify" its meaning, but to change its meaning.

This isn't relevant. Again, how many times do I have to repeat that 'society' has long perpetuated atrocities? It is a failed argument that is only adopted as a last recourse when no other logical argument can be found.

Whatever the defeat of Prop 8 is, it isn't an ATROCITY. I believe it to be an injustice, but it is no atrocity. Let's not be hysterical.

[old skool]

Pardon me, but this is completely inaccurate. There is ZERO evidence that the framers intended for blacks to vote. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the CONTRARY. THAT is why the Constitution had to be amended - not to "clarify" its meaning, but to change its meaning.

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. I am talking about in the philosophical sense. What they said clearly can and should be applied to gay people. They set up a system that is vague when it needs to be and specific when it needs to be. Everything that is necessary to extend equal rights to black people and women is contained in the Constitution. The amendment was necessary at the time because of the unwillingness of the people to see past their own personal bias. It also should be said that not everyone was in support of slavery or treating women as property.

Whatever the defeat of Prop 8 is, it isn't an ATROCITY. I believe it to be an injustice, but it is no atrocity. Let's not be hysterical.

I think it is in principle. I am a libertarian. I believe in very limited government, no legislation of subjective personal morality, and the liberty, rights and freedom of all people equally. I think amending a constitution to limit rights to a minority group is a very bad thing for this country regardless of who it affects.

[LAWatchFan]

Here's what I don't understand (as a Californian and an American, but not a lawyer... so forgive my ignorance):

To preface, I am not commenting on the issue of homosexuality, or marriage, or morality.

My state constitution was modeled somewhat after the US Constitution. One of the fundamental principles of the US Constitution is that in order to change it, a 2/3 vote is required. Not just 51 percent. I assume the idea is to make sure that a proposed change to something as important as a "constitution" is well supported and doesn't simply hold a majority vote.

So here is what I don't understand. How can my state, through its initiative process, alter the California state constitution with only a 52% vote. If our state legislators had attempted to make the same change it would have required a 2/3 vote, much like Article V of the US Constitution requires.

This whole ordeal seems rather contrary to the intent (as much as I hate to use that word in regards to the constitution) of Article V of the US Constitution, and the California State Constituion. And, quite frankly, seems rather "Un-American."

In my oppinion, no group should have had the right to change the wording of the Constitution without gathering at least 66.6% of the vote.

-Pete

Edited November 12, 2008 by LAWatchFan

[old skool]

Here's what I don't understand (as a Californian and an American, but not a lawyer... so forgive my ignorance):

To preface, I am not commenting on the issue of homosexuality, or marriage, or morality.

My state constitution was modeled somewhat after the US Constitution. One of the fundamental principles of the US Constitution is that in order to change it, a 2/3 vote is required. Not just 51 percent. I assume the idea is to make sure that a proposed change to something as important as a "constitution" is well supported and doesn't simply hold a majority vote.

So here is what I don't understand. How can my state, through its initiative process, alter the California state constitution with only a 52% vote. If our state legislators had attempted to make the same change it would have required a 2/3 vote, much like Article V of the US Constitution requires.

This whole ordeal seems rather contrary to the intent (as much as I hate to use that word in regards to the constitution) of Article V of the US Constitution, and the California State Constituion. And, quite frankly, seems rather "Un-American."

-Pete

I have been asking the same questions myself.

[jake48]

Old skool -really- Before you start waving your pseudo intelligence around you might want to know what you are talking about...

You are either naive or purposely misleading people.

3. In California, homosexuals do not have the same guarantees as heterosexual couples when it comes to life insurance, hospital visits, inheritance, retirement accounts etc. and there for they need to be recognized and granted Marriage Licenses just like Heterosexual couples. - Flat out NOT true! Domestic partnership laws in the state of California give substantially the same rights and impose substantially the same responsibilities on those who choose to enter into same sex unions. Nothing is being kept from gays with regards to Marriage vs Civil Unions, except the title and license...

This is factually false. You provide no evidence to back your claim. I recommend sticking to the facts.

Try reading AB 205. Under the Domestic Partner Law past in 2005, registered domestic partners are now entitled to the same legal treatment as spouses in most areas of state law.

The beauty of our system of government, when it is working correctly is to check and balance society with the laws of the land. California's constitution required that all citizens receive equal treatment under the law. The SC protected the minority from the majority as it was intended to do. The citizens have a right to amend the constitution, but it is sad to those who value liberty that they chose to use it to limit rights rather than to affirm rights. This is a new precedent which in my opinion is dangerous.

What? Once again misleading hype not based on anything remote to the truth. "The citizens have a right to amend the constitution, but it is sad to those who value liberty that they chose to use it to limit rights rather than to affirm rights. This is a new precedent which in my opinion is dangerous."

You might want to try reading THE Constitution. First - The Constitution doesn

[old skool]

Old skool -really- Before you start waving your pseudo intelligence around you might want to know what you are talking about...

You are either naive or purposely misleading people.

3. In California, homosexuals do not have the same guarantees as heterosexual couples when it comes to life insurance, hospital visits, inheritance, retirement accounts etc. and there for they need to be recognized and granted Marriage Licenses just like Heterosexual couples. - Flat out NOT true! Domestic partnership laws in the state of California give substantially the same rights and impose substantially the same responsibilities on those who choose to enter into same sex unions. Nothing is being kept from gays with regards to Marriage vs Civil Unions, except the title and license...

Try reading AB 205. Under the Domestic Partner Law past in 2005, registered domestic partners are now entitled to the same legal treatment as spouses in most areas of state law.

What? Once again misleading hype not based on anything remote to the truth. "The citizens have a right to amend the constitution, but it is sad to those who value liberty that they chose to use it to limit rights rather than to affirm rights. This is a new precedent which in my opinion is dangerous."

You might want to try reading THE Constitution. First - The Constitution doesn

[Luthier]

.......they need to be recognized and granted Marriage Licenses just like Heterosexual couples.

"Like"...???

Hey, anyone want to buy my $250 rep. for $18,000? No??? Why???? It's look "like" genuine!!!

Edited November 12, 2008 by Luthier