California Proposition Eight - Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

[Maria]

There you go!! you say that gay people choose to marry. That's their choice.

Who banned the gay marriage??? Now, they cannot marry because People tell them "NO!" and "You cannot marry!" Now you know how gay people feel about that.

Well, I've read somewhere about somethin' that the Supreme Courts ( liberals ) will provide gay/lesbian people the rights. I will go back and read it what EXACTLY it says... then, I will post it here ( in this thread ). It won't happen overnight but as the time process, it will happen durin' Obama's presidency. It won't be people's decisions, but Supreme Courts. I think because, of too many complaints in between 2 groups about it ( gay/lesbian people want " marriage " and the other group people don't want them to marry ... etc., etc. ) It's very interestin' to read. And, there's other more also.

How can they change votes to let them to marry?

It takes years for each state to accept. For how long ? I don't know. But, there's some things that really upset me to learn about somethin'. I really don't want to say it here, because I am gettin' tired of some ADers callin' me " paranoid " or what ever and I refused to show it to gay.lesbian people here -- to help them to know what's goin' on about the future. I clam myself up and let them to suffer without knowin' what it really is. Some of ADers don't act their own age by insultin' me or sayin' that I just make it up. These articles I read are not my ideas or plans for people. Someone wrote the articles to TELL people or for the REVIEWERS to read.

Just like for example : Lieblin' was tellin' me that she has the right to share her POV about Hitler and history, but she refused to acknowledge that she really hurts my feelin' about Jewish " fiddlin' with money " ... oh, just because my boyfriend himself is a Jewish and he is NOT fiddlin' with money,no matter what and those Jewish people in Hitler's time could be my boyfriend's relatives/ancestors/descendants. Lieblin' don't really understand that part. I don't care if she wants to discuss about HITLER and other things, except sayin' " fiddlin' with money ". She also thinks that I COMPARE gay/lesbian people with animal. She don't get it. I was talkin' about MY feelin' if, a person said it is not natural to marry to an animal -- I mean, why that person FEELS that way ???? Because he or she feels that it is not right. Okay ? That's his/her common sense what their feelings tell them. It doesn't mean that gay/lesbian people marry to animal. That's NOT what I was talkin' about. I feel it is NOT right to GIVE the marriage to gay/lesbian people because, I don't feel it is natural since that marriage is supposed to belong to a man and a woman. It has been this way for many years. I can understand that gay/lesbian people would like to be an equal with heterosexual ( sp ? ) people, but it will make things more difficult for gay/lesbian people because, it don't make people to " recognize " them since they are not a man and a woman. THAT'S the problem. Because of breedin' by havin' children. Adoptin' is somethin' else - not the same as breedin' by both natural parents to give birth.

For gay/lesbian ADers -- I apologized if you feel that I offend you about " animal ". It doesn't mean you are doin' them. I was just tryin' to express my feelin' in hopin' that someone could understand what I mean about why I don't accept the marriage for gay/lesbian people. But,hey - don't worry about me. I will look for an article and post it in here for you all to read about Supreme Courts. Okay ? I do think that you all are very awesome people but we do have our disagreement/agreement on some issues. It's somethin' we learn everyday.

 

[Endy]

It takes years for each state to accept. For how long ? I don't know. But, there's some things that really upset me to learn about somethin'. I really don't want to say it here, because I am gettin' tired of some ADers callin' me " paranoid " or what ever and I refused to show it to gay.lesbian people here -- to help them to know what's goin' on about the future. I clam myself up and let them to suffer without knowin' what it really is. Some of ADers don't act their own age by insultin' me or sayin' that I just make it up. These articles I read are not my ideas or plans for people. Someone wrote the articles to TELL people or for the REVIEWERS to read.

For gay/lesbian ADers -- I apologized if you feel that I offend you about " animal ". It doesn't mean you are doin' them. I was just tryin' to express my feelin' in hopin' that someone could understand what I mean about why I don't accept the marriage for gay/lesbian people. But,hey - don't worry about me. I will look for an article and post it in here for you all to read about Supreme Courts. Okay ? I do think that you all are very awesome people but we do have our disagreement/agreement on some issues. It's somethin' we learn everyday.

I am REALLY COOL with you. I suggest to hang out with gay/lesbians who are in relationships and gay/lesbians who have kids. (I don't mean that you should hang out with gays who are singles.) You may get idea how suffering they go through. Singles have no problems. Those who are in relationships are having hard times, especially those people who have kids. Reading Articles would not help you because every author/writer has bias before writing their POV. Just hang out or learn from those who have relationships or who have kids. You may see the difference with Reality and Articles in papers. You have to taste the reality. Get involved with their lives to see why it is necessary to get recognized in marriage instead of "civil union."

Trust me, you are not offending anybody. Your cool!

 

[Endy]

As the childs guardian theyre entitled to all lawful protections, sure.

AMEN!! You know how Bush's policy, Inter-faith organizations working with Social Workers. Gays/Lesbians are scared shit out of them because those social workers have the powers to take children away. Judges are commonly affiliated with churches can rule in favor of inter-faith organizations. That's the finest line between those authorithes' decisions affecting the guardians' rights. So, what does the lawful protections benefit those guardians? Sometimes, its very nice to have Activism judges to keep the powers in check.

Yep. When homosexuals ask for equality, it is considered special rights. Now, marriage is a special right only for heterosexuals. The people have spoken clearly.

Did the Blacks ask special rights in 1950s and 1960s. Equality and Special rights are different. Once the rights passed, it became common laws, what was the special rights for Blacks? Everybody wants the same thing. Everybody wants the same benefits everybody else has. What Special right? Do we Deaf people need a special right to get the same thing everybody else have? I am curious....

Which ever one is comfortable fitting into that gender role. Gender roles are socially determined, not biologically determined. Many heterosexual marraiges are successful with a switch in gender roles where the female takes on the stereotypical male gender role and the male takes on the stereotypical female gender role. It ain't no big deal. It is for the couple to determine how to divide the balance of power within any relationship, heterosexual or homosexual. And to those outside the relationship, as long as it works for that particular couple, it is no one else's concern.

Successfully?? Successfully?? Hmmm... That's not what I perceive in the marriage society. Please define the word, Successfully in heterosexual marriages. (What I understand your POV appear to be your bias, I'd like to hear your unbiased POV on Successfully. And yes, it's my concern.

Why butt into others' private lives? I don't give a hoot if straight or gay peeps wanna get married or not. It should be a right for everyone, not a privilege. This definitely is a social issue, and should not be made a legal issue. I'm sure those lawyers will get this overturned fast.

I can count on this one.

Then allow them to marry.

Simple as that.

I am totally with you.

And you'll want that as it's a known fact that gay couples boost property values....

Ohhh, yes!! It's well-known. It's common knowledge. Everybody knows. We should give them the credits for well-done jobs. They bring good tastes in fashion. Give them a break. They work so hard to keep things good for you. WE give them the beneifts for a great job.

 

[Wokamuka]

Did the Blacks ask special rights in 1950s and 1960s. Equality and Special rights are different. Once the rights passed, it became common laws, what was the special rights for Blacks? Everybody wants the same thing. Everybody wants the same benefits everybody else has. What Special right? Do we Deaf people need a special right to get the same thing everybody else have? I am curious....

That is was my point. I am as curious as much as you.

 

[Endy]

How was the same sex marriage an taboo? What if I consider the straight marriage as taboo too?

CHEERS!!!

 

[Endy]

That is was my point. I am as curious as much as you.

Yes. Humans are humans. Humans have the same rights as Humans have the same rights. NOTHING COMPLICATES. That's all matters. Human is a human. Person is a person.

All sudden, One is black. Things changed. "They" rejected Blacks because of their skin. However, Black is a person, Black is a human. Why "They" complicated it? I beg the difference.

This would go with gays/lesbians. Gays and Lesbians are Humans. Gays and Lesbians are Persons. Why "They" complicated the whole thing? I beg the difference.

Blacks and gays, even Deafies can marry anyone who they love. Why "They" deny the rights? Blacks, Gays and Deafies are humans and person. We want the same rights that "They" have. "They" keep denying the rights. Why difference? So, we fought our ways. Blacks got it. Deafies got it. Why cannot Gays get it, too? We want the same things, do we? Do we need SPECIAL rights to get the same things? Simply, "They" made things complicated and made things worst for us. Now, we have to ask Congress to pass "special" rights to get the same thing that "They" have.

Oddly, isn't? Why do we need "special" rights to get the same thing? Why "They" make things complicated because of what? Are we not humans enough? Are blacks human enough to get the same thing? What about gays and lesibans, they are humans too.

 

[Wokamuka]

Do we need SPECIAL rights to get the same things? Simply, "They" made things complicated and made things worst for us. Now, we have to ask Congress to pass "special" rights to get the same thing that "They" have.

Oddly, isn't? Why do we need "special" rights to get the same thing? Why "They" make things complicated because of what?

Right on the nose.

 

[Endy]

Right on the nose.

Alright!!

 

[Endy]

Yea, the idea that people feel they can take away other's rights to marry because it doesnt fit in their idea of how something should be is just plain wrong.

Exact!! Exact!! This is just plain wrong! Obviously.

Everybody has to be fit in one's idea of how something should be. For example (don't take me wrong. don't take this personally!) I am so freaking confused between "Be yourself." "Be proud who you are." I have to lick someone's ass to approve me so I can have the rights. Uh, ugh?

Blacks should be Whites. If not, we take rights away from Blacks. How about that?

Deafies should be Hearies. If not, we take rights away from Deafies. How about that?

Jewishs, Muslims, Catholics should be Southern Baptists. If not, we take rights away from Jewishs, Muslims and Catholics. How about that?

Women should stay at home and prohibits voting. If not, Men take rights away from Women. How about that?

Gays should be Straights. If not, we take rights away from Gays. How about that?

Who decided? Who decided what is right and wrong? Who decided who can have rights and who cannot have rights? You, no! You, yes! You, yes! You, no! You, No! You, yes! You, bad! You, good! You, good! You, bad. You, good! You, wrong, You, right. You, right. You, wrong, you, right. Who is bad? Who is good? You, hell. You, Heaven. You, Heaven. You, Hell. According to whom? Who is right or who is wrong, according to whom or what? Who decides who can fit the idea to whom according to what? Who are they thinking who is the "better" can have the rights? Who is not better, who? It's like "they" are running one's live. Are we practicing individualism because we are supposed to be allowedd in this country, United States? Do you?

 

[authentic]

It is ridiculous for me to see that many people are upset over California's law, and not upset about other states.

If gay/lesbian people are not happy with California's law, move to Massachusetts, or any state/country that allow gay/lesbian marriage.

 

[Wokamuka]

It is ridiculous for me to see that many people are upset over California's law, and not upset about other states.

If gay/lesbian people are not happy with California's law, move to Massachusetts, or any state/country that allow gay/lesbian marriage.

California, the most populated and wealthy (its economy rants 5th in the world - compared to the United States, as whole country, ranking lower.

Calfornia is seen to be the forerunner and California has taken the easy path, hate.

You try to simplify something that is not simple.

 

[authentic]

California, the most populated and wealthy (its economy rants 5th in the world - compared to the United States, as whole country, ranking lower.

Calfornia is seen to be the forerunner and California has taken the easy path, hate.

You try to simplify something that is not simple.

Try to learn not to finger-pointing at someone. :roll:

 

[Endy]

You try to simplify something that is not simple.

Yes, that is not simple!

It is ridiculous for me to see that many people are upset over California's law, and not upset about other states.

If gay/lesbian people are not happy with California's law, move to Massachusetts, or any state/country that allow gay/lesbian marriage.

You cannot tell someone to move somewhere else. That's really silly telling someone to do that.

Everybody has their roots in grounds. Some staying in CA for generations. Some have jobs and families settled in CA. Some loves the Old West. They will fight until they get what they needed.

That's not simple than you think.

 

[Endy]

Try to learn not to finger-pointing at someone. :roll:

Meaning? People taking the rights from other people. Sometimes we need to finger-point at someone who believes that it's okay to take rights away from someone.

 

[netrox]

I think the problem is that gay activists are using "gay marriage" instead of "civil union" because to many people, "marriage" means a woman and a man and they want to preserve that definition. They don't want marriage to be "redefined." In that case, I believe it makes sense and that's where gay activists are making a huge mistake. No matter how intellectual or technical a person may make for "gay marriage", he should NOT use "marriage" but rather "civil union."

I suspect most Americans will be ok if we call gay couples "civil union" even if gay couples are given the same federal rights that married couples get. They just don't like the idea of "marriage" being redefined.

Gays really blew it this time. But I also think the religious right wing is extremely mean-spirited and disrespectful to the gays.

 

[Byrdie714]

I think the problem is that gay activists are using "gay marriage" instead of "civil union" because to many people, "marriage" means a woman and a man and they want to preserve that definition. They don't want marriage to be "redefined." In that case, I believe it makes sense and that's where gay activists are making a huge mistake. No matter how intellectual or technical a person may make for "gay marriage", he should NOT use "marriage" but rather "civil union."

I suspect most Americans will be ok if we call gay couples "civil union" even if gay couples are given the same federal rights that married couples get. They just don't like the idea of "marriage" being redefined.

Gays really blew it this time. But I also think the religious right wing is extremely mean-spirited and disrespectful to the gays.

Actually the people who brought forth this "Amendment" blew it.

What people are forgetting is that in California--only the Legislature can propose changes to the Constitution and must put forth to the voters for approval or not.

Not an initiative to add to the Constitution.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Just like for example : Lieblin' was tellin' me that she has the right to share her POV about Hitler and history, but she refused to acknowledge that she really hurts my feelin' about Jewish " fiddlin' with money " ... oh, just because my boyfriend himself is a Jewish and he is NOT fiddlin' with money,no matter what and those Jewish people in Hitler's time could be my boyfriend's relatives/ancestors/descendants. Lieblin' don't really understand that part. I don't care if she wants to discuss about HITLER and other things, except sayin' " fiddlin' with money ". She also thinks that I COMPARE gay/lesbian people with animal. She don't get it. I was talkin' about MY feelin' if, a person said it is not natural to marry to an animal -- I mean, why that person FEELS that way ???? Because he or she feels that it is not right. Okay ? That's his/her common sense what their feelings tell them. It doesn't mean that gay/lesbian people marry to animal. That's NOT what I was talkin' about. I feel it is NOT right to GIVE the marriage to gay/lesbian people because, I don't feel it is natural since that marriage is supposed to belong to a man and a woman. It has been this way for many years. I can understand that gay/lesbian people would like to be an equal with heterosexual ( sp ? ) people, but it will make things more difficult for gay/lesbian people because, it don't make people to " recognize " them since they are not a man and a woman. THAT'S the problem. Because of breedin' by havin' children. Adoptin' is somethin' else - not the same as breedin' by both natural parents to give birth.

Why have I REPEAT to you that it´s NOT my POV but SHARE the hitler´s HISTORY. Don´t you read my LAST post over German homosexually, disablitiy, etc.? What I said the reason why Hitler killed the people is NOT my POV but SHARE the Hitler´s HISTORY WHAT and WHY Hitler DID to them since Hear Again brought up the reason why Hitler killed them... It´s NOT about JUST your boyfriend´s relatives/ancestors/descendants etc... it´s ABOUT ALL Jews, races and Germans who were victim under Hitler´s time. It´s not just your boyfriend but EVERYONE who lost their beloved one, including my hubby as well to Nazi´s time. You talk about your boyfriend but you really have no idea how and what everyone including my hubby´s family, Grandma etc had been through in Hitler´s time, not just Jews. I feel for everyone, not just for your boyfriend.

I convinced ADers that it´s about Hitler´s history, not my POV. It finally convince them that "jews are fiddle" is not my own word but share Hitler history why he do that.... I can see that it´s very, very, very, very, very, hard to convince you. Please ignore my post if you STILL cannot convince it.

Noooooo, Don´t fingerpoint me over human being and animal comparison because ADers have seen your posts and offended... I´m not only one who viewed your post... Don´t you read ADer´s postS how upset they are over your comparison post between human being and animal.

Endy, you will understand fully why ADers feel being insult by Maria´s posts when you read the whole thread here.

Maria, it´s good that you apologised ADers for your behavior here and then move on.

 

[Endy]

I think the problem is that gay activists are using "gay marriage" instead of "civil union" because to many people, "marriage" means a woman and a man and they want to preserve that definition. They don't want marriage to be "redefined." In that case, I believe it makes sense and that's where gay activists are making a huge mistake. No matter how intellectual or technical a person may make for "gay marriage", he should NOT use "marriage" but rather "civil union."

I suspect most Americans will be ok if we call gay couples "civil union" even if gay couples are given the same federal rights that married couples get. They just don't like the idea of "marriage" being redefined.

Gays really blew it this time. But I also think the religious right wing is extremely mean-spirited and disrespectful to the gays.

I disagree. Gays didn't blow it this time. New Jersey made a good point that Marriages and Civil Unions ARE NOT equally, period. Civil Unions are failing in the Northeastern States. Vermont said the same thing. People believed it was equally. No, it is not equally in the eyes of Laws and Politics. Every politician and lawyer knew it for a long time. They say it is not working, peorid. They promise everybody that it will be announcing unconstitutional by State Supreme Courts.

If we use the word, Civil Union, I guarantee it's complicating process than you think and that is NOT necessary. You will not get your marriage license. You are required to do MORE paperworks (doctors, power of attorney, living will, insurance purposes, joint banking accounts, etc) to go through THAN the marriage does. The reason is people can easily prove that that couple (man and woman) are married and prove with their marriage license. Now, two guys or two girls, we have to ask more proofs to support that they are "married." Do you know why? They don't give the marriage license. Without a marriage license, Civil Union and Marriage are not same thing. Lawyers know it along.

The best way is to get married as everybody else. Getting marriage license. It'd be a greatly appreciated that it'd cut down the chase, reduce the complication in the legal system, even reduce the messing the red-tapes in the bureaucracies. That's the difference. Basically, the key is marriage license. Marriage and Civil Union are not equally, not at all.

That's why people assumed that it'd work that way if gays and lesbians are "civil-unionized." They say that it is not working! So do the Lawyers and the politicians. Look at the fine examples with Vernmont and New Jersey. They wanted to change civil unions into marriages because they say it is not working with the concept of civil unions. They say it will eliminate the complication if they switch to marriage. It will fix everything to be equally in the eye of the Laws.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

gay people choose to marry. That's their choice.

Who banned the gay marriage??? Now, they cannot marry because People tell them "NO!" and "You cannot marry!" Now you know how gay people feel about that.

How can they change votes to let them to marry?

that´s why I support same sex marriage and respect them what they are.

 

[Endy]

Actually the people who brought forth this "Amendment" blew it.

Not an initiative to add to the Constitution.

Glad you cleared up this one. Yes, it is not an initiative to add to the Constitution. I forgot to mention it. Good Job!

Yes, People who brought forth this "Amendment" BLEW IT. Californians should know their Legislative procedure. State congressmen and State congresswomen are the ones who initiate the Amendments, have to go through subcommittees for approvals before going to the floor, and have to pass 2/3 votes by both houses before putting to the ballots.

Ask California Politician to explain the state amendment process.