California Proposition Eight - Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

[Foxrac]

I'm well aware of what he said. Whats your point?

Okay, there's nothing to point, I don't understand about your post at first place then got it.

I know about largest Mormon populations are in Jello belt, that where southwest CA is part of Jello belt.

 

[jillio]

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.



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....



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.



I can count on this one.



I am totally with you.



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.

It is not uncommon for a dad to be the stay at home parent and caretaker of home and children while the mother goes out to work and makes the larger income. Many heterosexuals have marraiges that reverse or share gender roles. Their family functions well under these circumstances. Both partners are happy with the arrangement. It is successful for that couple.

 

[jillio]

We should start making laws to ban interracial marriages and interfaith marriages!

Christians get all upset if their Christian kids marry non-Christian kids so why not make it illegal to marry non-Christians? Same with Muslims and Jews and athiests! No more interfaith marriages!

Whites get upset if their white kids marry black kids. Let's ban interracial marriages!

Same with gay marriage... they don't like if their kids marry the same sex.

They need to get over with it - it's NONE of their business to dictate HOW legal adults decide to enter a relationship.

There have been laws banning such in the past.

 

[jillio]

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.

My maternal family is Jewish. I was not offended. I understand what you were saying.

 

[PowerON]

Contrary to what some Americans think, this is NOT Jesusland. This is the United States of America and I'll be damned if I let a bunch of religious nuts control the laws in any state.

Afraid, it's not US you should blame, it's immigrant's religious that affect in begin. Isn't it?

 

[netrox]

Can you make up your mind?
Can you please clarify you contradictions in your posts on this topic?

There are no contradictions.

"The court will NEVER take your religious belief into consideration, it wants to know WHY, from a secular and legal point of view, gay marriage should be illegal."

I am merely pointing out that the court wants to know WHY gay marriage should be illegal from a legal point of view. I am just stating a fact that courts aren't interested in religious opinions, only secular and legal views.

"If gays simply rephrase the term, "civil unions" instead of "gay marriage", no one would care."

My point in that case is that if they chose to call it "civil union" instead of "marriage", Americans would think their marriage is not being threatened and would feel better knowing that they don't have to redefine "marriage" when in fact, marriage and legal civil union are the SAME thing. The government does NOT recognize relationships that churches may bless them. For example, gay unions who are blessed by their churches are NOT recognized at all. If a preacher has no marriage license, he cannot marry couples and the government will NOT recognize couples blessed by the unlicensed preacher. When a couple marries without a church, the government will recognize them as a legal civil union.

So, from a legal point of view, "marriage" and "civil union" are virtually the same and the gays should have used "civil union" - not marriage - to fight for legal recognition of their relationships. Americans would be ok with that. It's all about being pragmatic with how they define relationships.

 

[Byrdie714]

There are no contradictions.

"The court will NEVER take your religious belief into consideration, it wants to know WHY, from a secular and legal point of view, gay marriage should be illegal."

I am merely pointing out that the court wants to know WHY gay marriage should be illegal from a legal point of view. I am just stating a fact that courts aren't interested in religious opinions, only secular and legal views.

"If gays simply rephrase the term, "civil unions" instead of "gay marriage", no one would care."

My point in that case is that if they chose to call it "civil union" instead of "marriage", Americans would think their marriage is not being threatened and would feel better knowing that they don't have to redefine "marriage" when in fact, marriage and legal civil union are the SAME thing. The government does NOT recognize relationships that churches may bless them. For example, gay unions who are blessed by their churches are NOT recognized at all. If a preacher has no marriage license, he cannot marry couples and the government will NOT recognize couples blessed by the unlicensed preacher. When a couple marries without a church, the government will recognize them as a legal civil union.

So, from a legal point of view, "marriage" and "civil union" are virtually the same and the gays should have used "civil union" - not marriage - to fight for legal recognition of their relationships. Americans would be ok with that. It's all about being pragmatic with how they define relationships.

Okay...but who should be pragmatic on how they define the relationship?

 

[netrox]

Okay...but who should be pragmatic on how they define the relationship?

Gays. Because they are the ones that wanted their relationships recognized as a legal union. They need to be pragmatic. That's why I think they screwed it up when they said, "gay marriage!"

Polls have consistently showed that the majority of Californians would support "civil unions" yet oppose "gay marriage" even if they are exactly the same from a legal point of view!

 

[Byrdie714]

Gays. Because they are the ones that wanted their relationships recognized as a legal union. They need to be pragmatic. That's why I think they screwed it up when they said, "gay marriage!"

Polls have consistently showed that the majority of Californians would support "civil unions" yet oppose "gay marriage" even if they are exactly the same from a legal point of view!

They already had civil unions in California as it was legal.

It was the California Supreme court that ruled it was illegal to deny gays/lesbians the right to marry.

We don't need to change the terminology for the same thing because one group is 'boo-hooing' over the fact that gays can use the word, "marriage".

Don't like gay marriage? Simple--don't have a gay marriage.

But to sit there and say that you believe everyone is equal under the law and still deny gays/lesbians thier right to marry is being hypocrite plus it makes one think that you're uncomfortable with your own sexual orientation.

 

[Hwy99]

Don't like gay marriage? Simple--don't have a gay marriage.

Exactly!!

 

[Hwy99]

Gays. Because they are the ones that wanted their relationships recognized as a legal union. They need to be pragmatic. That's why I think they screwed it up when they said, "gay marriage!"

How would you feel if I say that the straight couples should just take the union because they are just straights, they don't need stupid religious marriage?

Polls have consistently showed that the majority of Californians would support "civil unions" yet oppose "gay marriage" even if they are exactly the same from a legal point of view!

Who cares, they are wrong anyway!

 

[netrox]

They already had civil unions in California as it was legal.

It was the California Supreme court that ruled it was illegal to deny gays/lesbians the right to marry.

We don't need to change the terminology for the same thing because one group is 'boo-hooing' over the fact that gays can use the word, "marriage".

I am just giving you what the working definition of marriage is. The fact that you are obviously understanding that issue better than most Americans do does not change the working definition of what "gay marriage" means to them.

My opinion does not mean shit to them, frankly. I believe CA's court decision was correct but the public doesn't understand the court's rationale and have voted to overturn their decision. (by the way, the judge that made the decision to support legal gay marriage is a conservative Republican!)

The working definition can change over time but right now, most Americans don't believe that "marriage" should be redefined.

It is of my opinion that the gays are pushing it too fast too soon. It takes time for the public to adjust to the idea that gays can marry. Most believe that they have the right to have legal "union" but most don't understand what "marriage" really means in a legal sense. To them, marriage is all about a church blessing their heterosexual wedding.

 

[netrox]

How would you feel if I say that the straight couples should just take the union because they are just straights, they don't need stupid religious marriage?

Who cares, they are wrong anyway!

They ARE wrong!

Just like they were WRONG to deny interracial marriage. In fact, even 20 years after CA ruled that interracial marriage ban was unconstitutional, the majority of Americans still opposed interracial marriage!

The majority has been wrong many times.

 

[Hwy99]

They ARE wrong!

Just like they were WRONG to deny interracial marriage. In fact, even 20 years after CA ruled that interracial marriage ban was unconstitutional, the majority of Americans still opposed interracial marriage!

The majority has been wrong many times.

Exactly and quit follow those are wrong.

 

[netrox]

Exactly and quit follow those are wrong.

Dude, I'd vote AGAINST Prop 8.

Remember, I am just giving out WHAT I believe is the root of why Prop 8 was voted and what the gays should have done. They should start slow and be careful with how they define those terms and not move too fast. That's all I am saying.

Intellectually and legally, there is NO justification to ban gay marriage but we have to keep in mind, the public does have an opinion and they do VOTE so we need to start at the grassroot and change their attitudes.

 

[Hwy99]

Dude, I'd vote AGAINST Prop 8.

Remember, I am just giving out WHAT I believe is the root of why Prop 8 was voted and what the gays should have done. They should start slow and be careful with how they define those terms and not move too fast. That's all I am saying.

Intellectually and legally, there is NO justification to ban gay marriage but we have to keep in mind, the public does have an opinion and they do VOTE so we need to start at the grassroot and change their attitudes.

So now you just vote to support other's rights, but still have your own disagreement?

 

[sequoias]

What I don't get is that they already don't have previlenges to allow gay marriage, yet they added a ballot to BAN gay marriage.

 

[Endy]

It is not uncommon for a dad to be the stay at home parent and caretaker of home and children while the mother goes out to work and makes the larger income. Many heterosexuals have marraiges that reverse or share gender roles. Their family functions well under these circumstances. Both partners are happy with the arrangement. It is successful for that couple.

I have to disagree with you. I have seen children doing great with two dads and some kids with two moms. They are successfully family, even a couple. The kids are fantastic, I swear God, they are so good!! They did so well in school. I have seen in the action. I fell in love with the family. They are so "functioning" family, comparing to dysfunctional families who ended up divorced up to 90 percents.

I have a lot of Single fathers with children. They are doing alright. I have seen a lot of Single mothers with children. They are doing alright. Many people are not married, sharing kids in one house. It's becoming common.

I don't believe in the word "successfully" fitting in a straight family ANYMORE because of the highest rate of divorces, domestic abuses and child abuses. Sorry, I have seen many wonderful children doing so well with two dads and two moms. No big difference.

 

[Daredevel7]

To me, it's more likely for states to accept civil unions more than gay marriage, even if they have the exact same rights.

Even though it's more than likely possible that civil unions would be "looked down" upon from a social perspective, but on paper civil unions are the exact same as marriage, even if it's harder to get.

Don't you think it would be faster for the nation to accept gay marriage if we start off with everyone accepting civil unions? I think the most important thing to me right now is gay couples should have equal rights as straight couples, not which word we use to describe the legal union.

Did you think blacks suddenly had full rights to do everything with one bill passed?

 

[Byrdie714]

It is of my opinion that the gays are pushing it too fast too soon. It takes time for the public to adjust to the idea that gays can marry. Most believe that they have the right to have legal "union" but most don't understand what "marriage" really means in a legal sense. To them, marriage is all about a church blessing their heterosexual wedding.

Hogwash.

Civil unions/domestic partnership have in this country for more than 30 years. A generation ago now.

To say that the idea and concept is still new isn't flying with me.

Secondly...homosexuals get married in churches as well. Afterall several denominations bless their gay parishiners and if their church recognizes it but the Feds don't--another contradiction.