Watching the results here
http://www.10news.com/index.html
http://www.10news.com/index.html
Prop 8 results
- Thread starter JoeT
- Start date
Corban_White
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Payson, AZ
I've been curious about this for a while and it seems phatfoto's comment backs up my hunch. Didn't a smiler amendment pass a few years back and then a few months ago the Cali. supreme court ruled it unconstitutional? If so, what little wording in it did they cite? And what is changed this time so that it will be "legal"?
Seth
These go to 11
- Location
- 2 weeks from everywhere
I am confused as to why people care. Why do people care? Who does it hurt? What is the argument for and against? (These are serious questions I really want to know the argument.)
jgb
Active Member
- Location
- West Desert
On that note:
California voters rejected a proposition to require doctors to notify parents before performing an abortion on a minor.
As you say "the people of California spoke", "Good for you California".
Elsewhere voters in Colorado and South Dakota rejected measures that could have led to sweeping bans of abortion.
Also as you say "the people of those states spoke too".
Good for you Colorado and South Dakota.....
sibeta
Registered User
- Location
- St. George
this is a hot fire subject to even comment on, i know. I wont even pretend say i understand it all but i lived in cali back when it was voted on the first time and i wasnt suprised to see it back up for vote again. One thing i think people dont recognize is that California’s domestic partner law and california law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Also after reading through the proposition, Proposition 8 does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under california law. Also I dont think most people care about what anybody does in the privacy of their own home or in their private lives. However, as i have read, the issue surrounds the fact that their union cannot be legally called a marriage. One of the big issues i heard about from my wifes family out in Cali was that if prop 8 didnt pass, public schools would now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners.
anyways, that is just one of the issues i heard about. There were many other ramifications surrounding this proposition.
Last edited:
scoutabout
None
It seems like such an innocuous issue. But there's a reason both Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin had the SAME stance on "gay marriage". Both opposed "gay marriage" while both support "gay unions" with equal rights.
It has become a cultural issue, and as with other cultural issues the reasons aren't always so logical.
It's clear why Utah and the LDS church would oppose gay marriage. If gay marriage were legalized, then any organization performing marriages would either have to accept ALL types of marriage or not be allowed to perform ANY binding marriages. So if gay marriage is legalized, either the LDS church has to stop performing sealings, or they have to perform sealings for gay couples. Either they can no longer marry couples, or they have to change doctrine and perform gay marriages. Neither avenue are appealing for the LDS leaders.
Some consider it a moral issue. The bible is clear about homosexuality. True believers in the bible don't want something like this introduced into their lives or the lives of their children
I don't really have an opinion either way. For me, it's like abortion. It's something that I'm against, but I'm not sure our gov't should dictate it for everyone.
ID Bronco
Registered User
- Location
- Idaho Falls, ID
I have not read the law on this, but I seriously doubt this is even remotely close to the truth. All chrurches have the right as a private entity to marry who they want. Catholics (mainstream) would not do this either. The court house judge would have to but not the churches. It is not a right to be married in any church, it is a privilage. The Gov doesn't make churches perform any marriages.
Not true.
My comment was not exactly for or against gay marriage. My comment was in regards to not only the last time this subject was voted on, but also the PEOPLE voted to reduce/eliminate benefits/welfare/healthcare for illegals. But that too, a few years back was declared unconstitutional and courts overturned the will of the people.
The will of the people is immaterial when courts are allowed to overturn the PEOPLE'S decisions.
It begins already
http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_10906871
Same-sex marriage ban challenged in court
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Last Updated: 11/05/2008 09:18:19 PM PST
For same-sex couples, the roller coaster ride for the right to marry shifted Wednesday from the rough and tumble of a political campaign back to the California Supreme Court.
And the fate of gay marriage in this torn state is as murky as ever.
"It's very hard to predict what the court will do," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Irvine Law School. "This is an issue where there isn't enough law to make a prediction."
Before the final votes on Proposition 8 were even tallied Wednesday, civil rights groups and San Francisco city officials filed two separate legal challenges in the California Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the state's latest ban on same-sex marriages. SNIPPED...
It doesn't matter the subject, if the losers are always allowed to take it to court because they didn't get the outcome they wanted, when presented fairly to the populace, this does not bode well for the future. For now its California. But as more locales turn more liberal, the courts will be dragged into things they have no business in in.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_10906871
Same-sex marriage ban challenged in court
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Last Updated: 11/05/2008 09:18:19 PM PST
For same-sex couples, the roller coaster ride for the right to marry shifted Wednesday from the rough and tumble of a political campaign back to the California Supreme Court.
And the fate of gay marriage in this torn state is as murky as ever.
"It's very hard to predict what the court will do," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Irvine Law School. "This is an issue where there isn't enough law to make a prediction."
Before the final votes on Proposition 8 were even tallied Wednesday, civil rights groups and San Francisco city officials filed two separate legal challenges in the California Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the state's latest ban on same-sex marriages. SNIPPED...
It doesn't matter the subject, if the losers are always allowed to take it to court because they didn't get the outcome they wanted, when presented fairly to the populace, this does not bode well for the future. For now its California. But as more locales turn more liberal, the courts will be dragged into things they have no business in in.
jgb
Active Member
- Location
- West Desert
I never said I agreed with them or disagreed with them, please do not infer a meaning that I did not state.
The intention of the post was that along with the gay marriage issue, abortion is also one of those hot topic/ personal/ religious issues.
So, whether one is pro abortion or anti abortion, the people of Colorado and South Dakota spoke, they WANT abortion rights and choice.
So, I hope in the future if the anti abortion/pro life people in those states challenge the outcome you and others (whether you and those others are pro life/pro abortion) will speak up against them for being sore losers.
BTW, this is ALSO the second time the anti abortion bill was voted on by the people in South Dakota, and both times the people knocked it down.
To quote you again, and which takes me back to your original post:
"South Dakota has spoken TWICE and still people take it to court. They are following the correct processes and STILL the people on the losing side call foul play. Good for you South Dakota....."
And again:
"They followed protocol and followed the law. The people have spoken....."
Last edited:
Tacoma
Et incurventur ante non
- Location
- far enough away
That's kind of a non-starter, the whole "the people have spoken"....
The inner cities will be speaking in increasing volume and demanding more freebies. I have no faith in the masses at all. And I'm an elitist, in that I believe that there are people out there who DO know better, that there IS a difference between the norm and the cream of the crop, and that it betters society to recognize and encourage success in that manner.
So the people may speak, but it's what they say that counts.
Personally, I don't see the problem with all of this. Civil unions are apparently perfectly legit with a lot of people, so why the push for actual marriage, which is by and large a religious institution (speaking of its origins and root philosophical base). I just don't get why civil unions aren't enough for "them".
*shrug*
The inner cities will be speaking in increasing volume and demanding more freebies. I have no faith in the masses at all.
And I'm an elitist, in that I believe that there are people out there who DO know better, that there IS a difference between the norm and the cream of the crop, and that it betters society to recognize and encourage success in that manner. So the people may speak, but it's what they say that counts.
Personally, I don't see the problem with all of this. Civil unions are apparently perfectly legit with a lot of people, so why the push for actual marriage, which is by and large a religious institution (speaking of its origins and root philosophical base). I just don't get why civil unions aren't enough for "them".
*shrug*
scoutabout
None
Churches and individuals are granted the right to perform binding marriages by the state. Do your research.
It is true.
By your statement that would mean that the LDS church would have to be willing to seal me in the temple as my form of marriage even if I wasn't LDS. That is one of the LDS churches marriage ceremony's and I haven't seen anyone forcing the church to marry anyone that comes to the door. your up in the night steve
Churches, Ministers and religious clergy in general can perform a marriage ceremony for anyone they see fit (or refuse those they don't want to on any grounds they wish) and the state provides the legal document. The only person who "Has" to marry anyone that comes and meets the legal requirements is a Judge
jgb
Active Member
- Location
- West Desert
Does a civil union/ domestic partnership = marriage?
John and Jane want to spend the rest of their lives together and be responsible for each other in a commited binding relationship.
1. John and Jane go to the court house, do what they need to do, a Justice of the Peace does what he needs to do.
2. John and Jane do all the above PLUS go to a church and have a priest do what he needs to do.
John and Jim, and Jane and Jill want to spend the rest of their lives together and be responsible for each other in a commited binding relationship.
1A. Each couple goes to the court house, do what they need to do, a Justice of the Peace does what he needs to do.
In #1 John and Jane are "married".
In #2 John and Jane are "married".
In #1A John and Jim, and Jane and Jill have a "civil union".
Yet #1 and 1A are the same.
It all comes down to semantics.
PLUS:
The way most of these bills/ laws/ amendments are worded, only "married" couples are allowed to foster care children or adopt children.
So, if 1 and 1A are the same, either Jane and Jill are "married" and CAN foster care and adopt OR John and Jill have a "civil union" and CAN'T foster care and adopt.
PLUS:
How many forms have the following:
single
married
widowed
I do not see a domestic partnership or civil union option.
So, again if 1 and 1A are the same, either Jane and Jill are "married" and CAN file jointly OR John and Jane have a "civil union" and CAN'T file jointly.
John and Jane want to spend the rest of their lives together and be responsible for each other in a commited binding relationship.
1. John and Jane go to the court house, do what they need to do, a Justice of the Peace does what he needs to do.
2. John and Jane do all the above PLUS go to a church and have a priest do what he needs to do.
John and Jim, and Jane and Jill want to spend the rest of their lives together and be responsible for each other in a commited binding relationship.
1A. Each couple goes to the court house, do what they need to do, a Justice of the Peace does what he needs to do.
In #1 John and Jane are "married".
In #2 John and Jane are "married".
In #1A John and Jim, and Jane and Jill have a "civil union".
Yet #1 and 1A are the same.
It all comes down to semantics.
PLUS:
The way most of these bills/ laws/ amendments are worded, only "married" couples are allowed to foster care children or adopt children.
So, if 1 and 1A are the same, either Jane and Jill are "married" and CAN foster care and adopt OR John and Jill have a "civil union" and CAN'T foster care and adopt.
PLUS:
How many forms have the following:
single
married
widowed
I do not see a domestic partnership or civil union option.
So, again if 1 and 1A are the same, either Jane and Jill are "married" and CAN file jointly OR John and Jane have a "civil union" and CAN'T file jointly.
Tacoma
Et incurventur ante non
- Location
- far enough away
jgb
Active Member
- Location
- West Desert
One of the arguments used by the anti gay marriage people is that "marriage" is a religious institution, then:
Only couples getting "hitched" in a church makes them "married" and all other forms of "hitching" are "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships".
So, John and Jill doing scenario #1 in my above post does NOT make them married and therefore CANNOT foster care and adopt. Only couples getting "married" in a church can foster care and adopt.
It seems the anti's want it both ways, there is no difference between 1 and 1A. They want to call the same thing two different names yet they both are the same. If a hetero couple gets "hitched" by a Justice of the Peace it is a "marriage", if a homo couple gets "hitched" by a Juctice of the Peace it is a "civil union".
Please make up your minds.
And this proves a "civil union" does NOT equal a "marriage".
Last edited: