Hundreds of Prop 8 protesters take to L.A. streets

[HyperTek]

The Associated Press: Hundreds of Prop 8 protesters take to L.A. streets (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gdkcD6F0eNjngZn5hk63zNWN8JegD949A8QO2)

LOS ANGELES (AP) — More than 1,000 people who turned up for a rally against the California's newly approved same-sex marriage ban took to the streets of Los Angeles and West Hollywood and blocked traffic.

Los Angeles police officer Jason Lee says "the overall indication is that the demonstrators and marchers are peaceful" in the Wednesday night protest against Proposition 8, but says at least four people have been detained.

Television cameras showed one protester jumping on top of a police car at the intersection of Hollywood and Highland. He was quickly wrestled to the ground by police and handcuffed.

The rally broke into several separate groups as midnight approached hours after the marching began, and protesters were still walking amid traffic on Santa Monica and San Vicente Boulevards in West Hollywood.

Saw it on the tv news.. . dam that shit was crazy. I didnt think people would go this far.

cbs2.com - 7 Arrested, Officer Hurt During Proposition 8 Protest (http://cbs2.com/local/prop.8.protest.2.857600.html)
http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/18/2008/11/06/320x240/prop8protest.jpg

I dunno if that was a good move imo,.. will fuel people to dislike it even more..

[Brian]

I don't blame them for protesting.
I'm glad.

Equality was obviously proven to be a LIE....

[ronmcdon]

Most likely this will go to appeals and/or the supreme court. seriously, just take legal action if you're not happy with the ruling. it worked back in 2000. protesting the way they did isn't going to accomplish anything other pissing other ppl off.

[Brian]

are you serious?

[ThatGuy]

I don't blame them for protesting.
I'm glad.

Equality was obviously proven to be a LIE....

Agreed.

Seperate but equal has never worked before. Why would they think it would be accepted now?

[murda-c]

Well good thing i'm black but not gay so i can still be happy.

Seriously though i thought cali was somewhere that gay marriage wouldn't have a problem.

[Matej]

It's good to see people standing up for something they believe in.

[ronmcdon]

are you serious?

Yes I am. I have more faith in a supreme court ruling to get things done than some random protest. Other than that, I personally don't care too much either way about the whole prob 8 deal.

[smellslikecurry]

:ninja edit:

personally, i have no problem with gay people...im sure theyre nice people

but as a future parent, the last thing i want is for my kids to think that being gay is ok

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

I'm glad they're protesting even though this effects me in no way :coolugh:

But seriously, marriage in schools in generally not allowed because there are plenty of children that are missing one or both parents. If people would have thought that then they would have realized that Utah is full of SHIT. It's just a bunch of gayhaters who like to delve into other people's business.
And it's not that they're not ONLY disallowing marriage, they don't even want a civil union! That means their spouse or whatever you want to call it holds no rights to their spouse on their deathbed and has no relation afterwards. To me that's crazy.

yea for real

i wouldve went too if i was in cali

personally, i have no problem with gay people...im sure theyre nice people

but as a future parent, the last thing i want is for my kids to think that being gay is ok

what difference does it make? really? It's not like the gays are going to convert your son/daughter. It really does nothing but promote a more tolerant California. And honestly, there is NOTHING wrong with being gay. It's just a sexual preference, it's not like they're vampires......or zombies!

[Brian]

USA used to accept african americans as slaves.
That was "ok" at one time...

Did people protest about it?

Yes.

Is it still "ok" now?
No.





case in point.

[ThatGuy]

yea for real

i wouldve went too if i was in cali

personally, i have no problem with gay people...im sure theyre nice people

but as a future parent, the last thing i want is for my kids to think that being gay is ok

Why would you have gone to the rally?

You do realize they are rallying AGAINST Prop 8, which just passed, outlawing Gay marriages.

So if your against Gay marriage, would you just show up at the rally to start a fight?

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

USA used to accept african americans as slaves.
That was "ok" at one time...

Did people protest about it?

Yes.

Is it still "ok" now?
No.





case in point.
I know seriously!!! As long as women NEVER has rights to vote then I'll be happy!

[smellslikecurry]

Why would you have gone to the rally?

You do realize they are rallying AGAINST Prop 8, which just passed, outlawing Gay marriages.

So if your against Gay marriage, would you just show up at the rally to start a fight?


fuck my bad i read it too fast and thought they were protesting to stop gay marriage

ninja edit






theres nothing wrong with gay people...theyre not vampires...one of my close friends is gay but from a religious stand point...no matter what religion...its not allowed

i dont know its a real catch 22...im an advocate for equal rights...but at the same time i dont want it be ok to be married and gay...its just something i cant swallow religiously

when you have a son...would it be ok with you if he was gay?

thats like instant hell.

[Brian]

curry - that is why there is "church and state"

[ThatGuy]

I have a son, and 3 daughters.

I still don't chose to treat homosexuality like it's a disease my kids will catch if we allow Gay marriages.

[jonasblack]

theres nothing wrong with gay people...theyre not vampires...one of my close friends is gay but from a religious stand point...no matter what religion...its not allowed



Fail...
Hinduism allow gay relationships and other forms too.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

fuck my bad i read it too fast and thought they were protesting to stop gay marriage

ninja edit






theres nothing wrong with gay people...theyre not vampires...one of my close friends is gay but from a religious stand point...no matter what religion...its not allowed

i dont know its a real catch 22...im an advocate for equal rights...but at the same time i dont want it be ok to be married and gay...its just something i cant swallow religiously

when you have a son...would it be ok with you if he was gay?

thats like instant hell.
I'm not going to dispute your beliefs but what would happen if your kid turns out gay? Regardless if you "want" it or not? Would you still love them or reject them because of this idea?
Also, I'm not going to dispute religion but how many priests get convicted of molestation and just get a small slap on the wrist? Is that justice? Does that mean they'll be destined for hell? Not if they're priests right? The same people that say it's bad for men to have sex with men are having sex with boys.
Sorry if I DID get overly religious. Please don't close.

[Matej]

Non-religious people get married. People of different religions all over the world get married.

The Bible is not the authority on marriage.

While I don't have a strong opinion on gay marriage leaning either way, I think it's ridiculous to outlaw it based on a purely religious argument, especially in a country where there's supposed to be a freedom of religion.

People need to find a better argument against it.

[Rey of Spots]

You know this is gonna turn into another one of those threads.

[smellslikecurry]

i totally understand what you guys mean...im actually really confused on how i feel about it myself

in my eyes...politically they should be able to get married...without a doubt...there should always be a separation between church and state.

religiously, i cant agree with it...i actually didnt know about hinduism...i was referring mainly to judiasm, islam and christianity.

for those of you that dont know...im muslim...not a crazy ninja suit advocating, women oppressing, militant muslim...a pretty liberal muslim

i try praying 5 times a day...i date girls...i dont eat halal food all the time...but for some reason i cant get past the old school ways of thought when it comes to homosexuality

if my son was gay...i cant ungay him...itd take time to get over it...but itd be hard to cope with knowing your sons going to hell...




funny story: i got to st. johns here in new york and this just happened

St. John's priest charged with emailing lewd videos - News (http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2008/10/08/News/St.Johns.Priest.Charged.With.Emailing.Lewd.Videos-3482528.shtml)

we used to say whatup to this guy everyday...always a friendly dude.

oh and i have no problem with lesbians:keke:

[touge monster]

I guess we gota take it one step at a time. At least we got Obama in the house.

I think the gay issue will be like the racism issue. Not everyone will agree to it, but it'll be more accepted over time.

[Rey of Spots]

The main problem is that the Prop 8 supporters do not want homosexuals
to be able to call their "togetherness" a marriage. Call it a civil union, but
not a marriage. To the supporters, they want to protect the sanctity of
what a marriage truly is, between man and woman.

They have dealt with giving them civil unions, but it doesn't give the couple
the same rights a married couple get.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

The main problem is that the Prop 8 supporters do not want homosexuals
to be able to call their "togetherness" a marriage. Call it a civil union, but
not a marriage. To the supporters, they want to protect the sanctity of
what a marriage truly is, between man and woman.

They have dealt with giving them civil unions, but it doesn't give the couple
the same rights a married couple get.
prop 8 bans even civil unions. What do you think a civil union is? It's a marriage in the eyes of the state. A civil union would give gays the exact same rights given to married couples. Prop 8 activists just get sickened by the thoughts of gays and want them to be treated like dogs and defferent from the rest of American citizens, plane and simple.

[Rey of Spots]

A civil union would give gays the exact same rights given to married couples.
Wrong my friend. These are some of the rights not given to
civil unions.

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Here's more info.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Wrong my friend. These are some of the rights not given to
civil unions.

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Here's more info.
Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage (http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm)
I always thought that a civil union is what you get at the court. Well, since I've never been married then I really don't know shit about it.

[ronmcdon]

USA used to accept african americans as slaves.
That was "ok" at one time...

Did people protest about it?

Yes.

Is it still "ok" now?
No.





case in point.

Slavery throughout the USA ended with the passing of the 13th amendment. I don't see how a random street protest had much to do with it, although you could make the case that the of Abolitionist movement might have eventually contributed to that.

Case in point, taking matters to the court works. It was the Supreme Court that voted against CA Prop 22.

State's top court strikes down marriage ban (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DTL)

Want results? Take it to court.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10907777

Personally I'm not convinced protests have that much influence in this day and age in the USA, regardless of the subject in question.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this :)

[Rey of Spots]

I'm not married either, but what do I know...

Honest question: If they allow gay marriage now, what's there to
stop something worse off in the future, such as incest being accepted?
I know that's a bit extreme, but I'm sure back then, people thought
homosexualism would never be acceppted, but look at it now.

Or even marrying animals...

Help this country.

http://is.rely.net/1-92-30009-l-tEzPh7Ge6PgBTGi0jOCgA.gif

[RJF]

So, would you rather have a judge "legislate" from the bench and make a ruling/law or what just happened, where people had the opportunity to vote on the issue and decide for themselves.

[Rey of Spots]

So, would you rather have a judge "legislate" from the bench and make a ruling/law or what just happened, where people had the opportunity to vote on the issue and decide for themselves.
The people voted and plead their case. They won. Next.

[drift freaq]

it comes down to this Separation of Church and State . Its big part of the Constitution. What the people who put Prop 8 on the ballot did was basically a violation of that. There commercials to vote yes were based on their own religious beliefs and not on facts.
They not only violated peoples civil rights with it but the violated the Constitution of the U.S. as well.
I hope it goes to the Supreme Court because its a Constitutional issue.

Either we are going to stick to the Constitution or we are lost.

Oh and RJF it was already legal here. These people that created the Prop and the Campaign to vote yes on it are just straight up bigots and religious zealots .

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

So, would you rather have a judge "legislate" from the bench and make a ruling/law or what just happened, where people had the opportunity to vote on the issue and decide for themselves.
the main commercial here in Ca showed children coming home to their mom and handing them a "king and king" book. Then saying that gay marriage WILL be taught in schools and it has already started in Mass.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, really. When did we EVER "learn" about marriage in school? You know why? because a LOT of kids don't have a parent or parents. Simple answer. You'll seriously harm a child if you outcast them by saying in a "normal" house is where a mommy and daddy live when that's clearly not the case in every house.

It's just another scare tactic that if there is gay marriage they'll rob your house and rape your children.

[RJF]

it comes down to this Separation of Church and State . Its big part of the Constitution. What the people who put Prop 8 on the ballot did was basically a violation of that. There commercials to vote yes were based on their own religious beliefs and not on facts.
They not only violated peoples civil rights with it but the violated the Constitution of the U.S. as well.
I hope it goes to the Supreme Court because its a Constitutional issue.

Either we are going to stick to the Constitution or we are lost.

Wrong. It is not a separation of church and state issue.

It is a separation of powers issue. The Judicial branch cannot make laws which must come from the legislative branch. If they want to pass a law that says it is ok, then it would be fine, but they will have to answer to their constituents.

[Rey of Spots]

Can't we all just get along? Group hug.

http://is.rely.net/1-92-56342-l-HDIvRy8znkfQjldAGcqmQ.gif

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Can't we all just get along? Group hug.

http://is.rely.net/1-92-56342-l-HDIvRy8znkfQjldAGcqmQ.gif
no















































that's gay!

[Rey of Spots]

no















































that's gay!
Discrimination! I'm going to protest.

[drift freaq]

Wrong. It is not a separation of church and state issue.

It is a separation of powers issue. The Judicial branch cannot make laws which must come from the legislative branch. If they want to pass a law that says it is ok, then it would be fine, but they will have to answer to their constituents.

If it is taken to court and goes to the Supreme Court then its constitutional issue and guess what Roe VS Wade . Right to an abortion.

Same exact thing happened with abortion. Abortion got approved in some places and then there was a political ballot campaign against it with a a lot of religious overtones, just like in this campaign. It wound up going to the Supreme Court and they made a constitutional decision.

Really RJF, not all constitutional issues are soley decided by the general public.
The Supreme Court among other things determine the Constitutionality of issues.
The Supreme Court upheld the Constitution in Roe VS Wade hence why abortion became legal.

Anytime people in the Country start pushing laws based on Religious beliefs it is a Constitutional issue, because Church is becoming involved in matters of state.
As long as we have civil marriage by law, marriage between two gays should be legal because its a non religious situation.

Now if you want to strike down all civil marriage as answer to not letting gays get married that's truly the only real legal ave that would have a Constitutional chance. Of course again you violate that Constitution because then people would need to go a a Church to get married thereby blurring the lines again between separation of Church and state.

Give it up your fighting a losing battle here. What I stated above is Constitutionally correct. Plus your from Colorado why should you care this is California?
Of course you might care now because it will probably go to the Supreme Court.

[ronmcdon]

it comes down to this Separation of Church and State . Its big part of the Constitution. What the people who put Prop 8 on the ballot did was basically a violation of that. There commercials to vote yes were based on their own religious beliefs and not on facts.
They not only violated peoples civil rights with it but the violated the Constitution of the U.S. as well.
I hope it goes to the Supreme Court because its a Constitutional issue.

Either we are going to stick to the Constitution or we are lost.

Oh and RJF it was already legal here. These people that created the Prop and the Campaign to vote yes on it are just straight up bigots and religious zealots .

Agreed completely. the argument FOR Prop 8 was extremely flawed to begin with, and they foolishly had announce their Christian-Catholic agendas. If the supporters of Prop 8 had seriously wanted any chance of gay marriage to be banned, they should have just left that part about religion out. It had set itself up for failure to begin with.

For the same reason, I'm fairly certain it'll be thrown out of the courts, even if the Supreme Court right now is slightly right leaning. Realistically, I very much doubt Prop 8 will pass in courts. That fact that it got passed in CA is of little consequence since it'll get thrown out in courts anyhow. Everything else is no more than a publicity stunt.

Not sure about what you mean by bigotry, but I agree about Religious Zealotry.
Self-Righteousness (not just the bible thumpers) here in CA is also never in short supply.

[usdm180sx]

Non-religious people get married. People of different religions all over the world get married.

The Bible is not the authority on marriage.

While I don't have a strong opinion on gay marriage leaning either way, I think it's ridiculous to outlaw it based on a purely religious argument, especially in a country where there's supposed to be a freedom of religion.

People need to find a better argument against it.

Well, last time I checked, the United States was "one nation under God" wasn't it?

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Well, last time I checked, the United States was "one nation under God" wasn't it?
hahahahaha horrible example. "under god" was added a half century ago to distinguish itself from the Soviets.

[ThatGuy]

Well, last time I checked, the United States was "one nation under God" wasn't it?

Nope.

It is "One nation, Indivisible".

"One Nation, Under God" wasn't respectful towards other religions. So it was changed or just not said at all.

[Jeremiel]

this thread makes me LOL haha

interesting points in this thread... my opinion doesn't matter, but i think history repeats itself just like what happened to the roman empire...

[cc4usmc]

"One Nation, Under God" wasn't respectful towards other religions. So it was changed or just not said at all.

I love how we change things just to accommodate others.

Not.

If it's not broke, don't fix it. But we keep fixing it, and in my opinion it's getting worse.
(That goes for everything)

The end. Which means I'm not going to post anymore so don't quote my post and try to prove me wrong.

[ThatGuy]

this thread makes me LOL haha

interesting points in this thread... my opinion doesn't matter, but i think history repeats itself just like what happened to the roman empire...

Wow, great job keeping your opinion to yourself with that cryptic repsonse.

No one will have any idea what you are talking about.

:rolleyes:

If you're going to keep your opinion to yourself, then do so.
If you're going to join the discussion, then push yourself away from the kiddie table and add something to the conversation.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

I love how we change things just to accommodate others.

Not.

If it's not broke, don't fix it. But we keep fixing it, and in my opinion it's getting worse. The end.
well we added "under god" in the mid 20th century to please others. so what's your point?

Wow, great job keeping your opinion to yourself with that cryptic repsonse.

No one will have any idea what you are talking about.

:rolleyes:
The glass is ALWAYS half empty. And didn't the Roman Empire rule for like 1100 years? So that gives us a long ways to go.

[Fonix36]

i new if i went online i would see this posted...
i meet to beautiful lesbian girls yesterday(i tried to hook up with one of them) and they were ever disappointed in the outcome but where still willing to do whatever it took to change the decision... this spirit is why the decision should be changed if it wasn't a big deal there wouldn't be a reason to care.

[Agamemnon]

Can someone provide me the documentation that shows marriage is a right?

I know the US signed the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 defining marriages rights, but i dont see it in the US constitution. any help. I've been searching for awhile now.

[usdm180sx]

Damn, where have I been? I know where, spending too much time on zilvia. Times have changed!

[drift freaq]

Can someone provide me the documentation that shows marriage is a right?

I know the US signed the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 defining marriages rights, but i dont see it in the US constitution. any help. I've been searching for awhile now.

In reality, at this point it does not matter, if you can find it in the constitution. What has happened, is the writers and backers of Prop 8 managed to turn it into a constitutional issue. Due to the fact that they were doing it based on religious reasons and stated that fact.
Therefore a a Religious doctrine is trying to create laws of the state. That's a violation of the separation of Church and State.

Its the same deal with Abortion, before Roe VS Wade and the Constitutional amendment made on the Supreme Court decision there was nothing in the Constitution about the rights of women to choose to abort a child.

Most people who opposed abortion before did it on stated religious reasons. Most people who oppose abortion now, do it on religious reasons. As long as they state that in their fight against it, they will always lose constitutionally.

Because these people have managed to connect there prop to a Religious organization and promote that fact that it was backed by them, even though it has passed it would fall in court. Due to what I and others have stated in this thread already.

Please read, how many times do we have to post this fact?
Had they not tied it to a religious organization, had they not promoted and backed it for religious reasons? It would hold up in court constitutionally. They failed, it fails. It will fall if it goes to court, which it probably will.

Regardless of if you agree with it or no?t Purely based on facts it was fucked from beginning and will be overturned.

[C. Senor]

that's jacked. i didn't know they didnt get all those rights by going through civil union.

but, you have to face the fact that most people now, as when the constitution was written, are religious. so the morals of religion will prevail when faced with the state.

i somehow see this staying as is, but with a lot of fighting to follow.

don't get me wrong, i'm all for equality, but if you're truly a follower of some religion (christianity/judaism/muslim) then you can't really argue for equality in this case. if you don't pertain to a certain religion, then i can grasp where you're coming from.

i think if the people against prop 8, just informed better, they might've got better support to negate the prop. the supporter of prop, just played the hand better and they won. all there is to politics. just appeal to the people more and you win.

[ESmorz]

WIENERS!!!!!

If you voted yes, I hope your kids turn out to be gay.

[Agamemnon]

What has happened, is the writers and backers of Prop 8 managed to turn it into a constitutional issue. Due to the fact that they were doing it based on religious reasons and stated that fact.
Can you supply the source for this info. Do have the link to the info that quotes backers of prop 8 saying in a court that the reason they wanted to ban same-sex marriage was due to religious reasons?

[drift freaq]

that's jacked. i didn't know they didnt get all those rights by going through civil union.

but, you have to face the fact that most people now, as when the constitution was written, are religious. so the morals of religion will prevail when faced with the state.

i somehow see this staying as is, but with a lot of fighting to follow.

don't get me wrong, i'm all for equality, but if you're truly a follower of some religion (christianity/judaism/muslim) then you can't really argue for equality in this case. if you don't pertain to a certain religion, then i can grasp where you're coming from.

i think if the people against prop 8, just informed better, they might've got better support to negate the prop. the supporter of prop, just played the hand better and they won. all there is to politics. just appeal to the people more and you win.
hate to say this, no take that back I don't hate to say this. What you have written above is ignorance in the name of Religion. It does not make it right.
Just because people are religious does not take precedent over constitutional law either. It never did and the minute it does the country we know as the United States will disappear into a Religious Oligarchy.

To many Religions and people of Religious belief today take judgement into their own hands.

If you believe in Christ and God you believe in acceptance and that its not your place to judge. It does not say that you can make laws against people due to your religious belief.

If you do judge? Which these people are doing, then you shall be judged, according to your own beliefs.

I just love, how the religious right manages to violate, the very scriptures they are trying to uphold in the name of God. That with their own actions in the name of God.

I.E. you may feel it is wrong, you may feel God believes it wrong. Though its not your place to judge. If you do then your playing the role of God.

[drift freaq]

Can you supply the source for this info. Do have the link to the info that quotes backers of prop 8 saying in a court that the reason they wanted to ban same-sex marriage was due to religious reasons?

It was in the ads themselves(among other things) at the end because per law the people backing the ad have to state they did the ad. It has not gone to court yet;

The prop itself was written by religious organizations, the vote yes campaign was advertised by religious organizations.
I used the examples of Roe VS Wade for the constitutionality of this situation. If you seriously do not understand that then you need to stop discussing this right here.

Now I have a question for you?
Why are you so intent on trying to disprove what these people actually did? I seriously think you need to step back and realize this has nothing to do with your state.
Unless you want to see it become a National issue(Supreme Court) and have something to do with your state.

In fact because of what has happened, it just might become a Supreme Court issue. So in other words its already backfired on the supporters of Prop 8.

[jimmytango00]

hate to say this, no take that back I don't hate to say this. What you have written above is ignorance in the name of Religion. It does not make it right.
Just because people are religious does not take precedent over constitutional law either. It never did and the minute it does the country we know as the United States will disappear into a Religious Oligarchy.

To many Religions and people of Religious belief today take judgement into their own hands.

If you believe in Christ and God you believe in acceptance and that its not your place to judge. It does not say that you can make laws against people due to your religious belief.

If you do judge? Which these people are doing, then you shall be judged, according to your own beliefs.

I just love, how the religious right manages to violate, the very scriptures they are trying to uphold in the name of God. That with their own actions in the name of God.

I.E. you may feel it is wrong, you may feel God believes it wrong. Though its not your place to judge. If you do then your playing the role of God.


+1

its really interesting reading this, considering im gay....Its scary to think there are really people out there who think this way....

sad.....:-/

I really hope some of your kids come out gay, im sure some of you guys will be singing a to a whole different tune.

Also, i hate to break it to some of you guys but gays are born gay... you dont "catch gay" so no matter what your kids get taught in school or if they read the "king and king" book, if your kids are gay their fucking gay no matter what they learn.

[mRclARK1]

Let them get married if they want... On two conditions that are not negotiable.

1) People have a right to disagree with it, as long as their disagreement does not enroach on the freedom of those they disagree with.

2) Religious persons of authority (IE: Priests, those in public office who hold religious faith) cannot be forced to take part in or perform marriage ceremonies, or other religiously significant matters to their particular faith, for or with a homosexual couple if they so choose.

So if I'm a priest and I believe that in good conscience and keeping to my religious beliefs, I cannot marry them, I have every legal right to refuse to do so. They'll have to find someone else. It's not discrimination... It's no different than someone being refused for a job because of a physical limitation. For them it is NOT possible to do this. No need to be nasty or mean or preachy... A simple polite decline is all that's needed.

If I was presented with a option to vote on gay marriage, I simply would not vote. I may have religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean they extend in there expectations of behavior (as far as my judgement or authority is concerned) beyond myself.

[ESmorz]

Fucking Canadians, I love you bitches.

[S14DB]

I'm not married either, but what do I know...

Honest question: If they allow gay marriage now, what's there to
stop something worse off in the future, such as incest being accepted?
I know that's a bit extreme, but I'm sure back then, people thought
homosexualism would never be acceppted, but look at it now.

Or even marrying animals...

Help this country.

http://is.rely.net/1-92-30009-l-tEzPh7Ge6PgBTGi0jOCgA.gif

SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!


Anti-miscegenation laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws)

[HyperTek]

sorry guys, didnt mean for this to become another prop 8 debate, just wanted to talk about the current actions, i wasnt expecting the protesting to go this far. I do understand that these are people just like you and me, who also have feelings, and this is a very emotional thing for them, so i now change my views upon it and would say no *before i was yes*.

Not allowing it will probably just make it worse... but dam, a brother cant get a job, and these people are skipping work just to protest.. grrrrrrrrrrrrr


on a lighter note - one day this will make the history books... hundred years from now in a classroom far far away lol "during the 21st century, there was the gay movement, which started by gaining acceptance from protesters and media coverage, your xxth president was gay and introduced the first man-man relationship into the white house..."

[drift freaq]

Let them get married if they want... On two conditions that are not negotiable.

1) People have a right to disagree with it, as long as their disagreement does not enroach on the freedom of those they disagree with.

2) Religious persons of authority (IE: Priests, those in public office who hold religious faith) cannot be forced to take part in or perform marriage ceremonies, or other religiously significant matters to their particular faith, for or with a homosexual couple if they so choose.

So if I'm a priest and I believe that in good conscience and keeping to my religious beliefs, I cannot marry them, I have every legal right to refuse to do so. They'll have to find someone else. It's not discrimination... It's no different than someone being refused for a job because of a physical limitation. For them it is NOT possible to do this. No need to be nasty or mean or preachy... A simple polite decline is all that's needed.

If I was presented with a option to vote on gay marriage, I simply would not vote. I may have religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean they extend in there expectations of behavior (as far as my judgement or authority is concerned) beyond myself.


This is absolutely fine. I see this as the proper attitude. Unfortunately most people cannot seem to separate their beliefs from discrimination and zealotry.

A Truly rightous person indeed would not judge anyone, regardless of agreeing or disagreeing.

[mRclARK1]

Fucking Canadians, I love you bitches.

hahaha...

Don't get me wrong... If I have to, I will pick up a gun and start shit up. I'm not your typical left winger, tree hugging, socialist Canadian.

Not by a long shot. ;) ... Basically the exact opposite.

I just don't see the issue here. If your religious view is that it's a sin, then fine... But what's the difference in the end. The world's full of it, and you've got your own filth to worry about.

"Get the plank out of your own eye"

[WERDdabuilder]

anyone get caught up in the traffic today?

i don't see how these protests will help, now the people that voted NO will probably have a change of heart cause of these nutjobs(no pun) making a huge traffic jam.

[ESmorz]

Yeah... traffic's gay

[airsoft]

I got cought up in that shit.

Fucking big Santa Monica in front of the Mormon Church.

Listen... protest but DON"T GET IN MY WAY

Running in and out of the streets.

LAPD stoppign traffic all directions...

TOOK ME 2 HOURS TO GET OUT FROM BEVERLY HILLS TO PICO / SEPULVEDA

[Agamemnon]

It was in the ads themselves(among other things) at the end because per law the people backing the ad have to state they did the ad. It has not gone to court yet;

The prop itself was written by religious organizations, the vote yes campaign was advertised by religious organizations.
I used the examples of Roe VS Wade for the constitutionality of this situation. If you seriously do not understand that then you need to stop discussing this right here.

Now I have a question for you?
Why are you so intent on trying to disprove what these people actually did? I seriously think you need to step back and realize this has nothing to do with your state.
Unless you want to see it become a National issue(Supreme Court) and have something to do with your state.

In fact because of what has happened, it just might become a Supreme Court issue. So in other words its already backfired on the supporters of Prop 8.First of all, I am not attacking same-sex marriages. I'm in favor for it! So dont think for one minute I'm some sort of religious nut bag.

I asked from you to to show the proof that the backers of prop 8 used religion as a reason to the courts when they petitioned same-sex marriages and had prop 8 added to the November ballot. Cali state would've never added prop 8 to the ballot if they walked in and said "we want to amend the state constitution because god said so!" Just as you said, seperation of church and state. The judges would've laughed in their faces and asked them to leave the courts.

[ronmcdon]

It was in the ads themselves(among other things) at the end because per law the people backing the ad have to state they did the ad. It has not gone to court yet;

The prop itself was written by religious organizations, the vote yes campaign was advertised by religious organizations.
I used the examples of Roe VS Wade for the constitutionality of this situation. If you seriously do not understand that then you need to stop discussing this right here.

In fact because of what has happened, it just might become a Supreme Court issue. So in other words its already backfired on the supporters of Prop8.

Hmm..Agamemnon could very well be correct.

According to the manner in which prop 8 presents itself, there is no mention at all about religion. Prop 8 is actually very sparse on details. I take back what I said earlier about it being poorly written.

Taken from;

Proposition 8 - Title and Summary - Voter Information Guide 2008 (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm)

"This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California."

Yes, advocates for Prop 8 is funded in part by certain Christian, and Jewish groups, but there are also religious groups that are against it and likewise offer funding for it. So religious groups are funding and supporting both sides of prop 8, but religion itself isn't an official justification for Prop 8.

About the Constitution itself, I see that there provisions that protect freedom of speech, religion, and press. It also demands equality based on race and sex, but nowhere is there mention of equal rights based specifically on 'sexual orientation' or even 'gender'.

Technically the Supreme Court ruling (if it goes there) could interpret this either way. Looking further at this, there is a very real possibility the Supreme Court could uphold Prop 8. I doubt this is likely, but that doesn't mean it won't happen at all either. Depending on your point of view, Prop 8 could be unconstitutional, OR, it could have nothing to do with the constitution at all.

Interesting to see how this will play out in the courts.

[C. Senor]

hate to say this, no take that back I don't hate to say this. What you have written above is ignorance in the name of Religion. It does not make it right.
Just because people are religious does not take precedent over constitutional law either. It never did and the minute it does the country we know as the United States will disappear into a Religious Oligarchy.

To many Religions and people of Religious belief today take judgement into their own hands.

If you believe in Christ and God you believe in acceptance and that its not your place to judge. It does not say that you can make laws against people due to your religious belief.

If you do judge? Which these people are doing, then you shall be judged, according to your own beliefs.

I just love, how the religious right manages to violate, the very scriptures they are trying to uphold in the name of God. That with their own actions in the name of God.

I.E. you may feel it is wrong, you may feel God believes it wrong. Though its not your place to judge. If you do then your playing the role of God.

it is not a judgement. i'm noy saying don't be gay. by all means, be gay. just not out in public. i personally do not display public heterosexual affection, so i expect other people to not do so as well. if it were a judgement i'd say hey stop being gay! i'm just saying you can not take the word that has been institutionalized by religion.

by-the-way, as per your last comment there, if i feel God believes it to be wrong, then why would i support it. i'm not judging, i'm simply choosing what i feel to coincide best with my beliefs and values.

+1

its really interesting reading this, considering im gay....Its scary to think there are really people out there who think this way....

sad.....:-/

I really hope some of your kids come out gay, im sure some of you guys will be singing a to a whole different tune.

Also, i hate to break it to some of you guys but gays are born gay... you dont "catch gay" so no matter what your kids get taught in school or if they read the "king and king" book, if your kids are gay their fucking gay no matter what they learn.

i have no gripe against any one that is gay. good for you. but for some one to say i hope your kid turns out gay, is making it a worse case for you. you're making it sound like a disease, which you say it is not. which it's not. but it's just pushing it further that way. and to say it like that, being scornful is also just wrong. i dont go around saying i hope your kid gets aids, or cerebral palsy or anything like that.

hahaha...

Don't get me wrong... If I have to, I will pick up a gun and start shit up. I'm not your typical left winger, tree hugging, socialist Canadian.

Not by a long shot. ;) ... Basically the exact opposite.

I just don't see the issue here. If your religious view is that it's a sin, then fine... But what's the difference in the end. The world's full of it, and you've got your own filth to worry about.

"Get the plank out of your own eye"

you guys better be careful with this guy. he's a loose canon. i like the plank in my eye. it keeps the sun from blinding me. :ugh:

[WERDdabuilder]

in cali...chickens have more rights than gays haha.

[airsoft]

So if No passed would the Supporters of No on 8 complain it was unconstitutional and should re write it to RE VOTE???????

[ronmcdon]

Please, let's keep this civil. I'm enjoying the discussion and I really don't want to get it locked.

But about prop 2, that was really interesting too. On one hand, there could be some very real health risks involved. On the other hand, whether or not those health risks can be attributed to cage size might be somewhat questionable. Poultry farmers might just move elsewhere.

With the other props, it was interesting how everyone wanted to spend more $$$ on programs here and there. Not saying it's wrong to spend on things like education, high speed rails, and childrens' hospital, but I wasn't convinced now is the right time to do so, considering the dismal and uncertain state of CA and country's economy.

[svensko]

We shouldn't allow marriage at all. It's only logical...

After all... straight marriage -> gay marriage -> pedophilia -> bestiality -> alienphilia?

We must stop this before it starts! Get rid of straight marriage today! :aw:

[revat619]

I'm not gonna even get into this argument, but i will say this....

SERIOUSLY, stop equating this to black civil rights and slavery. It is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being the same thing, and its fucking insulting and irritating that people are even making that comparison.

[jimmytango00]

i have no gripe against any one that is gay. good for you. but for some one to say i hope your kid turns out gay, is making it a worse case for you. you're making it sound like a disease, which you say it is not. which it's not. but it's just pushing it further that way. and to say it like that, being scornful is also just wrong. i dont go around saying i hope your kid gets aids, or cerebral palsy or anything like that


I was just a little upset, Im alot calmer now :hs: I'll take my words back.

Its just sad, and i hope some of you people do change your mind cause honestly if your kids just happen to be gay and grow up being taught that gay is bad, , it will literally scar a big part of them. I grew up this way and honestly it brings me to tears sometimes thinking that my parents really never got to know me for who i really am. 23 years i had to lie to my parents and pretend to be something im not, dont put your kids through this please, take it from someone whos been there.

[CrimsonRockett]

I'm not gonna even get into this argument, but i will say this....

SERIOUSLY, stop equating this to black civil rights and slavery. It is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being the same thing, and its fucking insulting and irritating that people are even making that comparison.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Not to be all negative, but the proposition was thrown out there.

All of California voted.

Over half agreed with it.

Majority won.

Think of it like...American Idol(simplest comparison I could think of).

Both gave it their all.

People voted.

Certain person won by majority even though he/she may have sucked.

You can't demand for it to be changed once majority has decided.

[Rey of Spots]

What's the point of propositions if people just protest to overturn them?

[CrimsonRockett]

Stop posting those smart ass remarks.

I will lock this.

[WERDdabuilder]

Stop posting those smart ass remarks.

I will lock this.

the hell? ok power trip. how about you not compare this to american idol..

[ronmcdon]

Prop 8 isn't going to be overturned because these protests.

[Rey of Spots]

About American Idol... Clay Aiken came out of the closet recently.

Prop 8 isn't going to be overturned because these protests.
I meant that they're going to take it to the appeals court correct?

[CrimsonRockett]

It's the simplest comparison.

What do you want me to compare this to?

Obama being elected president?

Okay. Fine.

People were for Mccain. Others were for Obama.

Obama won by majority.

What, are we going to have a recount?

No wait, lets have people vote all over again just to make sure they decided correctly.

[svensko]

the hell? ok power trip. how about you not compare this to american idol..
Nah man, it's practically the same thing. Vote for your fav. every week! :love:

[ronmcdon]

Yes, it's already filed iirc. That is just the nature of our political system. Prop 22 (similar to 8) was thrown out by the Supreme Court just earlier this year. Not all propositions get thrown out, so it's not like they don't matter at all.

[SexPanda]

Honestly...

Its not like you become gay because you meet a gay person
Gay people can fall in love
Kids see alot worse then gay people on the tv.
Hate is the bastard child of ignorance and fear
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
the USA may have been founded by christians, but they purposefully made it a (officially) non-christian country. Religion has no place in politics.

So why shouldn't gay people get married? I dont see a problem with 2 CONSENTING adults in love getting hitched.

Consenting is the key word though. To keep away those people wanting to marry, say, a dog, or a 13 year old, or a comic book character.

[irax]

I don't blame them for protesting.
I'm glad.

Equality was obviously proven to be a LIE....

which would you rather have, equality be a lie? or the constitution ?..... ohh wait both are lies anyways....

[svensko]

which would you rather have, equality be a lie? or the constitution ?..... ohh wait both are lies anyways....

Whoa man... That's... so... deep... :barf:

[CrimsonRockett]

Nah man, it's practically the same thing. Vote for your fav. every week! :love:

Make sure you vote no on prop 8!

Oh wait, it already passed.

[Rey of Spots]

the USA may have been founded by christians, but they purposefully made it a (officially) non-christian country.
Yea, and look where this country is now... in the shitter.

[WERDdabuilder]

It's the simplest comparison.

What do you want me to compare this to?

Obama being elected president?

Okay. Fine.

People were for Mccain. Others were for Obama.

Obama won by majority.

What, are we going to have a recount?

No wait, lets have people vote all over again just to make sure they decided correctly.

yes because thats discrimination...

[svensko]

Make sure you vote no on prop 8!

Oh wait, it already passed.

Make sure you delete a bunch of posts!

Oh wait, you already did.

[touge monster]

Damn, where have I been? I know where, spending too much time on zilvia. Times have changed!

That's right Norm, they no longer serve garlic fries at Red Robins.


Oh.. and um.. Yeah! I totally agree with SexPanda. Totally agree.

[CrimsonRockett]

Make sure you delete a bunch of posts!

Oh wait, you already did.

Can't stress it enough.

Hell, I voted No on it.

I have nothing against gay people.

Again, everybody voted.

It passed.

Another prop will come up with a repeal to this one.

Let that get taken care of.

Don't block traffic and start shit with people passing by.

[alindeman1989]

dam people need to chill. They voted it in now fucking get over it and stop bitching. I swear people are such little whinners.

[jeeper_x]

man, if you're gay and in love about be marry, then this prop came along...

you'll be hella piss, too....

[revat619]

man, if you're gay and in love about be marry, then this prop came along...

you'll be hella piss, too....

if i was gay, i'd get a domestic partnership, have all the same rights and benefits as married couples, just TELL people i'm married and stay the fuck home and not back up traffic. Who the fuck cares what it says on paper....

Whats funny is that at the end of all this all the gay people who got married before this are gonna be like "well, sucks for you". FYI, prop 8 is not retroactive.

[jeeper_x]

then what the fuck is the problem?

[revat619]

the problem is that SINCE the passing of 8, any gay couple wanting to get married cant actually use the word "married" to define their union. Yes that is it.

yeah......black civil rights/slavery was soooooooo similar. :rolleyes:

I hope now, you can understand my anger with them using that struggle as a comparison.

[DLo Eric]

I cannot believe I just read 91 posts about Prop 8 and only 1 person had the balls (no pun intended) to say they voted against banning gay marriage. I really have no say in the matter considering I live in Nevada. But this seriously boils down to religious f***s and old people's vote. Granted there was a higher percentage of younger people casting their votes this election, you're still battling the baby boomers.

Let the gays get married. Its not going to effect me or you or your children or even your children's children. What makes you think hetero couples can be the only ones allowed to be happy and/or miserable?

I'm tired of being near closed minded bigots. Let the gays be gay. It's not like they're going to setup shop at your nearest elementary school playground or on your front lawn.

I won't even get into hermaphrodites/transgendered as they were BORN this way.

I have nothing to say to anyone nor am I taking my time to type this out for those against gay marriage. It's just whats on my mind.

[jeeper_x]

the problem is that they cant use the word "married". Yes that is it.

fuck i thought it was suppose to ban marriage, so the gay couple couldn't get the same rights and benefits of a marry couple....

are you 100 percent sure?

but in the other hand, if it's only that word "married", why not just let the gays have it?

why go through all these friggin' dramas?

[revat619]

fuck i thought it was suppose to ban marriage, so the gay couple couldn't get the same rights and benefits of a marry couple....

are you 100 percent sure?

but in the other hand, if it's only that word "married", why not just let the gays have it?

why go through all these friggin' dramas?

Yes, i'm 110% sure. It is about the definition of a word. A domestic partnership in California has all the same rights, priviledges, benefits, etc. of a marriage. Its in the law of California under family code. I'd quote it, but its pretty long. I read the whole thing though. They get all the same shit.

Basically they wanted to be able to use the same word and CA voted and said no you cant. Now they're mad.

I dont care one way or the other.

[PhilthyS13]

Wrong. It is not a separation of church and state issue.

It is a separation of powers issue. The Judicial branch cannot make laws which must come from the legislative branch. If they want to pass a law that says it is ok, then it would be fine, but they will have to answer to their constituents.

True, the judiciary cannot make new laws. But they can overturn unconstitutional laws.

Just look at the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, heterosexual people can have drive thru weddings or be married by Elvis or get married sky diving or get married in a Star Trek The Next Generation wedding, regardless of what class, race, IQ, religion, or any other catagory that people belong to with the exception of homosexuals. If that's not discrimination, I don't know what is. At one point is was illegal for Whites to marry other races. That has since changed and the sky hasn't fallen.

And another thing: about religion. My religion, along with many others, forbids premarital sex. I'm not throwing stones, but how many of you people who don't think homosexuals should be married are virgins? Shit, Islam and Mormonism (at least formerly) allow(ed) polygamy.

C'mon, Britney was married for 59 hours and THEN she married KFed. How much worse can it get?

[corwin]

Supreme Court decision that calls marriage a fundamental right:

In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

also:
This is the funniest anti-8 ad I've seen. Hooray for sarcasm.
YouTube - Vote NO on Prop 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exPoH1JX0Q8)

[corwin]

if i was gay, i'd get a domestic partnership, have all the same rights and benefits as married couples, just TELL people i'm married and stay the fuck home and not back up traffic. Who the fuck cares what it says on paper....

Whats funny is that at the end of all this all the gay people who got married before this are gonna be like "well, sucks for you". FYI, prop 8 is not retroactive.

Actually, they don't. "A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple."

So basically, they don't get all the rights, but they're subject to all the obligations. Kind of like having to work but not getting paid.

" * Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
* Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
* Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
* Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
* Sick care and similar family leave
* Stepparent adoption procedures
* Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
* Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
* Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
* The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
* Access to some survivor pension benefits
* Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
* The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
* The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
* Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
* The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
* The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage"

I see nothing there that gives next of kin status, which is pretty damned important IMO.

[HyperTek]

people can still go out of state to get married and come back in right?? like a vegas shotgun marriage ?

[corwin]

from wikipedia: "A valid same-sex marriage performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes such unions, such as Massachusetts, would not be recognized in California as either a marriage or a domestic partnership. This is due to the fact that California statute prohibits recognition of another jurisdiction's validly performed same-sex marriage."

[corwin]

I mean, they can, but that would mean jack regarding their rights in CA.

[revat619]

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same
rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.

(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death
of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to
and imposed upon a widow or a widower.

(d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners
with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those
of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving
registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of
them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.

(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer
to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise
would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently
than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by
California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in
the same manner as California law.

(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights
regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.

its even longer than that, but you get the idea.....

Maybe i'm wrong, and often times that is the case, but doesnt that pretty much say that all the shit married couples have/can do domestic partnerships have/can do?

All the stuff you mentioned they dont get could easily be fought with this section of CA law could it not?

[HyperTek]

i think your right, similar in that one movie where that one guy and adam sandler did *ghhh cant think of the name of it*, even tho i dont remember what state the movie took place in lol

[corwin]

Well I missed that, but from my understanding, in practice that is not often the case. But, that just gets us to the whole "separate but equal" argument which I am tired of using right now. Regardless, SCOTUS deemed marriage a fundamental right.

[TheWolf]

OK I'll put it out there... I voted for yes on florida's prop 2.. same thing as 8.. for 1. I don't want gay's being married. I think that will mess kids up to have 2 dad's or 2 mom's. I mean if I was 8 years old again and found out some kid's parrents were gay in my class... you bet I'd tease him about it.. "least my dad doesn't wear and apron and suck dick". There's no comeback for that... Call it what you will but it's not some genetic disposition it's a fad and they'll all die off because it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage that can generate offspring and provide a household for them.

[murda-c]

Someone called me a n####r once.

I didn't have a comeback either, i guess i should go back to africa.

[SimpleS14]

After reading Revat619's (Jay?) post this whole thing makes more sense.

It's more or less a title change, but still given the rights as a married couple.

Perhaps a title such as "married" is more significant than the rights/benefits.

I'm blown they would even try to put this on the same level black civil rights/slavery movements.


murda-c - I always thought you were white :/

[YoungGun]

Some pictures my friend took yesterday:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b304/cruizer123/prop8.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b304/cruizer123/prop82.jpg

[mRclARK1]

I wasn't aware that domestic partnerships give them all the same rights and benefits revat619's post is in fact correct... So if all that's being debated is the definition and "right" to use a word? What's the point? If they get all the same benefits from a domestic partnership, then the only possible reason I can see to force this issue is to make some kind of religious statement since that would remain the only difference between the two... The religious signifigance that marriage has to many people.

It seems like when these debates happen, like they did here a few years ago, both sides become extremely immature. :-/

[shade]

I thought marriage originated and came out of the scriptures..

Talking out of my ass, correct me.

[jskateborders]

church and state
Church says no....
So if the state allows gay marriage, they will have to stop pushing natural selection, because in that theory, the weak species die out naturally, and homosexuals are unable to reproduce so....

[aznpoopy]

Just look at the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:


equal protection doesn't help them out here, and i'll tell you why.

there are three levels of judicial scrutiny of a law under equal protection. rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. in short, under rb review it's easy to legitimize laws and under ss it's really hard. which review you trigger depends on the classification as a suspect class

homosexuals have not as of yet qualified as a suspect class, mainly because being homosexuality is not yet considered an "immutable characteristic," one of the factors considered in determining whether a denomination is a suspect class. they are classified as "quasi-suspect."

therefore, laws that allegedly violate equal protection for homosexuals are analyzed under the "rational basis" review. rational basis review requires only that the law in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. my guess is a state interest like "preserving the sanctity of the marital institution" will pass muster under rational basis very easily.

[usdm180sx]

I wonder where the gay marriages that were conducted before prop 8 stand. Like Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DeRossi...

[drift freaq]

Ok I am going to sum this whole thread up and I am done.

1. Apparently Prop 8 was more vaguely written than I thought. So though the people behind publicly advertised the facts of who they were it could go either way in Court.

2. Because contested laws can go all the way to the Supreme Court it could indeed become a Constitutional issue.

3. As far as what Reveat was saying about it being compared to Equal rights, I do not think the gist of the discussion was about equal rights. It was about marriage rights. So Reveat needs to be back down on this angle.

4. Marriage is indeed a granted right in the country and was upheld by the Supreme Court, there again indeed making this a constitutional issue.

5. This for Johnny aka Crimson Rocket, Johnny this discussion and debate ensued for one reason. The way that the public was brainwashed by the supporters of Prop 8 with their crazy ads to vote yes on it. It was a mud slinging smear campaign not based on facts but personal beliefs. Hence why so many people are up in arms.

6. This proposition spreads ignorance, it breeds stupidity and whats worse it breeds stupidity based off right wing religious beliefs. I am sorry but ignorance or ignorance in the name of religion are both not good for the U.S.

7. In essence, if the religious people in this thread, who keep on commenting against marriage of gays really were not judging gay people? They would say ok, I don't agree with it but if they want to let them.
If you are religious and feel so threatened by the concept of gays marrying?
I suggest you look at yourself and stop worrying about others, because it seems to be your personal issues and feelings, rather than taking a unbiased look at the situation.

8. To wrap it up its already been filed in court at this point leave up to the Courts. Oh and don't think there will not be another ballot initiative to turn this around as well.
This is not just going to go away or get brushed under the bed. These people want certain definitions and a lot of people feel they deserve it. The actual vote tally was very close and the it only went yes by around 2-3%.

Thats it folks end thread. It was a good discussion.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Ok I am going to sum this whole thread up and I am done.

1. Apparently Prop 8 was more vaguely written than I thought. So though the people behind publicly advertised the facts of who they were it could go either way in Court.

2. Because contested laws can go all the way to the Supreme Court it could indeed become a Constitutional issue.

3. As far as what Reveat was saying about it being compared to Equal rights, I do not think the gist of the discussion was about equal rights. It was about marriage rights. So Reveat needs to be back down on this angle.

4. Marriage is indeed a granted right in the country and was upheld by the Supreme Court, there again indeed making this a constitutional issue.

5. This for Johnny aka Crimson Rocket, Johnny this discussion and debate ensued for one reason. The way that the public was brainwashed by the supporters of Prop 8 with their crazy ads to vote yes on it. It was a mud slinging smear campaign not based on facts but personal beliefs. Hence why so many people are up in arms.

6. This proposition spreads ignorance, it breeds stupidity and whats worse it breeds stupidity based off right wing religious beliefs. I am sorry but ignorance or ignorance in the name of religion are both not good for the U.S.

7. In essence, if the religious people in this thread, who keep on commenting against marriage of gays really were not judging gay people? They would say ok, I don't agree with it but if they want to let them.
If you are religious and feel so threatened by the concept of gays marrying?
I suggest you look at yourself and stop worrying about others, because it seems to be your personal issues and feelings, rather than taking a unbiased look at the situation.

8. To wrap it up its already been filed in court at this point leave up to the Courts. Oh and don't think there will not be another ballot initiative to turn this around as well.
This is not just going to go away or get brushed under the bed. These people want certain definitions and a lot of people feel they deserve it. The actual vote tally was very close and the it only went yes by around 2-3%.

Thats it folks end thread. It was a good discussion.
great post. And lets not forget that before the whole "dey gunna teach it 2 da childrenz," the yes on prop 8 supporters were down 19 points. I guess 75 million from Utah is good for a 22 point swing.

[airsoft]

I hope soon enough we all start loving our HOT sisters / cousins so that can be legalized if society accepts it... or a vast majority...

I want to fuck my brother, we should all do so, its my right to...

Technically if they compare civil rights etc. to gay marriage...

I can go as far as to say, i want to fuck my sister get married and have kids, please don't think of me differently society and allow us to marry.


Incest is NOT legal in California.

^^WHAT THE FUCK???? WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS TO LOVE WHO I WANT????

IM STARTING A RIOT...

California code 285 on adultery/incest is not well written, but it clearly holds to the standard by which a marriage would be considered valid. Please see the code on "Void Marriage" below.

California Penal (Criminal) Code 285.
Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which
marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who
intermarry with each other, or who being 14 years of age or older,
commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison.

California Family Code - Part 2 Judicial Determination of Void or Voidable Marriage
2200-2201 VOID MARRIAGE
Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and
descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the
half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or
aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning,
whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

[revat619]

Ok I am going to sum this whole thread up and I am done.

1. Apparently Prop 8 was more vaguely written than I thought. So though the people behind publicly advertised the facts of who they were it could go either way in Court.

2. Because contested laws can go all the way to the Supreme Court it could indeed become a Constitutional issue.

3. As far as what Reveat was saying about it being compared to Equal rights, I do not think the gist of the discussion was about equal rights. It was about marriage rights. So Reveat needs to be back down on this angle.

4. Marriage is indeed a granted right in the country and was upheld by the Supreme Court, there again indeed making this a constitutional issue.

5. This for Johnny aka Crimson Rocket, Johnny this discussion and debate ensued for one reason. The way that the public was brainwashed by the supporters of Prop 8 with their crazy ads to vote yes on it. It was a mud slinging smear campaign not based on facts but personal beliefs. Hence why so many people are up in arms.

6. This proposition spreads ignorance, it breeds stupidity and whats worse it breeds stupidity based off right wing religious beliefs. I am sorry but ignorance or ignorance in the name of religion are both not good for the U.S.

7. In essence, if the religious people in this thread, who keep on commenting against marriage of gays really were not judging gay people? They would say ok, I don't agree with it but if they want to let them.
If you are religious and feel so threatened by the concept of gays marrying?
I suggest you look at yourself and stop worrying about others, because it seems to be your personal issues and feelings, rather than taking a unbiased look at the situation.

8. To wrap it up its already been filed in court at this point leave up to the Courts. Oh and don't think there will not be another ballot initiative to turn this around as well.
This is not just going to go away or get brushed under the bed. These people want certain definitions and a lot of people feel they deserve it. The actual vote tally was very close and the it only went yes by around 2-3%.

Thats it folks end thread. It was a good discussion.

just to clarify, i wasn't talking about comparing rights of heterosexual marriages and gay unions in THIS discussion. I was talking about their (the protesters) comparison of their struggle with the BLACK civil rights movement and slavery. They are NOT the same. And i will not back down from my stance on that.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

I hope soon enough we all start loving our HOT sisters / cousins so that can be legalized if society accepts it... or a vast majority...

I want to fuck my brother, we should all do so, its my right to...

Technically if they compare civil rights etc. to gay marriage...

I can go as far as to say, i want to fuck my sister get married and have kids, please don't think of me differently society and allow us to marry.


Incest is NOT legal in California.

^^WHAT THE FUCK???? WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS TO LOVE WHO I WANT????

IM STARTING A RIOT...

California code 285 on adultery/incest is not well written, but it clearly holds to the standard by which a marriage would be considered valid. Please see the code on "Void Marriage" below.

California Penal (Criminal) Code 285.
Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which
marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who
intermarry with each other, or who being 14 years of age or older,
commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison.

California Family Code - Part 2 Judicial Determination of Void or Voidable Marriage
2200-2201 VOID MARRIAGE
Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and
descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the
half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or
aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning,
whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.
seriously? Are you comparing incest to a homosexual relationship? That's wrong on so many levels. This shows you how intolerant and full of hate you are if you think it's comparable.

[Kuzumi]

i forgot where but i heard that you can marry your second cousin.

and to sum up the same sex marriage ordeal:
"what one generation accepts; the next generation embraces"

[ESmorz]

the problem is that SINCE the passing of 8, any gay couple wanting to get married cant actually use the word "married" to define their union. Yes that is it.

yeah......black civil rights/slavery was soooooooo similar. :rolleyes:

I hope now, you can understand my anger with them using that struggle as a comparison.

Ok look, I don't think anyone is comparing them equally and if they are well... I think we all know they aren't the brightest. Obviously the Civil Rights movement was huge and dealt with oppression all across the board. Including marriage. It is silly to compare it on that level.

However, you can still compare it on the principality that we are saying to a group of human beings who have done nothing wrong but be who they were meant to be "NO, you can't do this because you have something about you that dumb fucks in this country don't like". In that likeness it is fair to compare it. Separate but equal doesn't work. That was proven, and I know you know that's true.

I just hope some day people will get the fuck over themselves and do what is right for all people. Not just there self(god)-centered ways and maybe, just maybe go out of their way to instead kick people in the balls, maybe throw them a fucking bone and make them happy. So in closing I would like to think if Jesus was around today he would have voted no. Yes they are "sinning", but judge lest not ye be judged. Turn the other cheek and make people happy.

[drift freaq]

Yes they are "sinning", but judge lest not ye be judged. Turn the other cheek and make people happy.

This is exactly what I have been saying numerous times in this thread. Funny how all the people that call themselves religious have ignored it and kept up the debate based off their views.

Funny thing is I am Spiritual and I do believe in God. I was raised Catholic. I am not a church going person though. Here I am arguing in favor of what I feel are basic rights. Why because I do believe what is written above.

Anyways I was said I was done earlier perhaps that was premature due to esmorz reposting what I have said earlier and so many have ignored. I suggest people pay attention to those words. Live by them, own them, and die by them.


tha tha tha thats all foLk!s I am now finally done with this one.

[highwaystar22]

The only thing I would like to interject is that not only "bible thumpers" voted for this. A very large majority of the Black community, and Latino community voted for this as well.

I've seen a lot of hate and anger being spread towards the Morman church, which I do not agree with nor attend, but I don't see the same type of approach to these ethnic groups.

Do you think that Mormans were targeted because they are easier to pick on? Do you also think this approach has been taken so the people rioting can avoid being called themselves "racists" and "bigots" for attacked the majority of the Black and Latino community who voted and supported this?

[airsoft]

seriously? Are you comparing incest to a homosexual relationship? That's wrong on so many levels. This shows you how intolerant and full of hate you are if you think it's comparable.

Intolerant ?

Wrong on how many levels? Your levels?

Please explain? Some cultures accept this

Does it make you feel bad? disgusted?

I'm sorry, however, I can pro create w/ my sister not w/ another person the same sex...

STOP FUCKING WITH MY RIGHTS TO BE WITH WHO I WANT.

OK IM DONE, POINT MADE, CAN'T ARGUE IT

[Antihero983]

I'm not religious but....

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

[WERDdabuilder]

Ok look, I don't think anyone is comparing them equally and if they are well... I think we all know they aren't the brightest. Obviously the Civil Rights movement was huge and dealt with oppression all across the board. Including marriage. It is silly to compare it on that level.

However, you can still compare it on the principality that we are saying to a group of human beings who have done nothing wrong but be who they were meant to be "NO, you can't do this because you have something about you that dumb fucks in this country don't like". In that likeness it is fair to compare it. Separate but equal doesn't work. That was proven, and I know you know that's true.

I just hope some day people will get the fuck over themselves and do what is right for all people. Not just there self(god)-centered ways and maybe, just maybe go out of their way to instead kick people in the balls, maybe throw them a fucking bone and make them happy. So in closing I would like to think if Jesus was around today he would have voted no. Yes they are "sinning", but judge lest not ye be judged. Turn the other cheek and make people happy.

and this is why CrimsonRockett's analogy of "american idol" is stupid.

[CrimsonRockett]

I knew it was a stupid analogy.

I intended for it to be as simple as it could get.

This will be a never ending discussion.

You can't force people to agree with you.

Prop 8 passed.

Quit being sore losers(even though the proposition is completely wrong).

:lockd: