California Proposition Eight - Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Daredevel7 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hypothetically speaking.....

Let's say you have two good friends......

One is gay, the other is straight. You know your gay friend for 5 years, you know your straight friend for 3 years

One day in the mail--you get an invitation to attend a "civil union" (because of the law) and another invitation to a "heterosexual wedding"--which you know that statistics is the 2 out of 3 heterosexual weddings end in divorce--

Which one would you attend ? ? ? And why?
 
Byrdie714 said:
Hypothetically speaking.....

Let's say you have two good friends......

One is gay, the other is straight. You know your gay friend for 5 years, you know your straight friend for 3 years

One day in the mail--you get an invitation to attend a "civil union" (because of the law) and another invitation to a "heterosexual wedding"--which you know that statistics is the 2 out of 3 heterosexual weddings end in divorce--

Which one would you attend ? ? ? And why?
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense. When I get 2 invitations in the mail, I don't think about statistics! I just go to the more important friend's wedding!

What I am saying is, some people are SO focused on trying to get gay marriage legal and trying to change peoples minds that they don't even try to think of the other ways around them. I am an efficient person. If my goal is to get ALL couples the same rights, I'd explore all avenues towards legalization of gay marriage because obviously trying to go straight to gay marriage isn't working! Or at least working VERY VERY slowly.
 
Daredevel7 said:
That doesn't even make sense. When I get 2 invitations in the mail, I don't think about statistics! I just go to the more important friend's wedding!
Click to expand...

Uh....which friend's "wedding" would you attend is the question?

The gay friend or the heterosexual friend?
 
Byrdie714 said:
Uh....which friend's "wedding" would you attend is the question?

The gay friend or the heterosexual friend?
Click to expand...

Why would I pick a wedding SOLELY on basis of sexual orientation...? Isn't that saying the same as "Should I go to the jewish wedding or the hindu wedding?"

Let's assume that I don't know anyone in either weddings to make things equal. I'd go to the gay wedding because I've never been to one before! :)
 
SACRAMENTO, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Sunday said "we will ... maybe undo" a measure passed by voters Tuesday stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry.

Proposition 8 amends the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It came in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.

In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

The comments seem to represent a change in Schwarzenegger's thinking, the Times said. In the past he has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he has also said the matter should be decided by voters or the courts and he opposed Proposition 8.

He told backers of same-sex marriage they "should never give up."

"They should be on it and on it until they get it done," he said.
Click to expand...

Video: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8 - UPI.com
 
PowerON said:
Why does I get feel that they being threat by someone? *itch my butt*
Click to expand...

A threat? Well, By now, You should know that anything comes and goes. So, with that, I am sure they are expecting the threats to be laid out.


Foxrac said:
What happen if someone take this law case to US supreme court and find unconstitutional by 5-4 or 6-3 then would force to strike down in all states.

DOMA would be automatically strike down after followed that.

I have agree with Arnold on most cases.
Click to expand...

That's a good question. We shall wait and see if this case will end up being taken to the Supreme Court. But, First, It has to be overturned in California and if it isn't, that's when the next step will be necessary.
 
Jolie77 said:
A threat? Well, By now, You should know that anything comes and goes. So, with that, I am sure they are expecting the threats to be laid out.




That's a good question. We shall wait and see if this case will end up being taken to the Supreme Court. But, First, It has to be overturned in California and if it isn't, that's when the next step will be necessary.
Click to expand...

Yup, if this law is overturn in CA then no need take to supreme court because case has been rest.

When after Obama appoint and replace 1-3 of justices (depends on when 1 swing or conservative justice to retire at first) then someone from other state that where ban on gay marriage like NC, GA, FL, TX, etc would take case to supreme court, it seems like possibly.
 
netrox said:
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.
Click to expand...


First of all, they're not the same thing at all. Civil unions didn't even exist in America until 2000. They were made up as an attempt to give same-sex couples some rights. I forget the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it's around 1200 benefits that a marriage license gives you that a civil union doesn't.

Also, I think that this country has spoken pretty clearly on the whole "separate but equal" issue. Do we really need to rehash the entire civil rights movement to show how this is wrong? I mean, come on, why couldn't black people just have been happy with their seats on the bus. Why wasn't that enough for them? Why wasn't their water fountain good enough? Why did they have to want to marry white people? I think a lot of heartache could have been avoided if they would have just been happy with what we gave them. Right?

:roll:

*Points to the dripping sarcasm in case some people still missed it.*
 
lsfoster said:
First of all, they're not the same thing at all. Civil unions didn't even exist in America until 2000. They were made up as an attempt to give same-sex couples some rights. I forget the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it's around 1200 benefits that a marriage license gives you that a civil union doesn't.

Also, I think that this country has spoken pretty clearly on the whole "separate but equal" issue. Do we really need to rehash the entire civil rights movement to show how this is wrong? I mean, come on, why couldn't black people just have been happy with their seats on the bus. Why wasn't that enough for them? Why wasn't their water fountain good enough? Why did they have to want to marry white people? I think a lot of heartache could have been avoided if they would have just been happy with what we gave them. Right?

:roll:

*Points to the dripping sarcasm in case some people still missed it.*
Click to expand...

Ahhh but you're assuming that the civil unions are not equal AND straight people wouldn't do the civil unions if they were equal. Civil unions NOW aren't equal....

so let me ask everyone this question: Which has a better chance of success:

-Legalizing gay marriage?
or
-Making civil unions equal to marriage?
 
I would say the latter, Deardevel...
 
Daredevel7 said:
Why would I pick a wedding SOLELY on basis of sexual orientation...? Isn't that saying the same as "Should I go to the jewish wedding or the hindu wedding?"

Let's assume that I don't know anyone in either weddings to make things equal. I'd go to the gay wedding because I've never been to one before! :)
Click to expand...

Then you would've never been invited. :roll:
 
Daredevel7 said:
Ahhh but you're assuming that the civil unions are not equal AND straight people wouldn't do the civil unions if they were equal. Civil unions NOW aren't equal....

so let me ask everyone this question: Which has a better chance of success:

-Legalizing gay marriage?
or
-Making civil unions equal to marriage?
Click to expand...

Legalizing Gay Marriage.

By making civil unions equal to marriage--you are still advocating "separate but equal."

And I am not giving up my seat on the bus.
 
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ROCKS!! He knows it along. Now I am admiring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Foxrac said:
What happen if someone take this law case to US supreme court and find unconstitutional by 5-4 or 6-3 then would force to strike down in all states.

DOMA would be automatically strike down after followed that.

I have agree with Arnold on most cases.
Click to expand...

It's more likely to finding unconstitutional. This would be the most historic road to the Supreme Court in few years.

Daredevel7 said:
Ahhh but you're assuming that the civil unions are not equal AND straight people wouldn't do the civil unions if they were equal. Civil unions NOW aren't equal....

so let me ask everyone this question: Which has a better chance of success:

-Legalizing gay marriage?
or
-Making civil unions equal to marriage?
Click to expand...

Legalizing gay marriages!! Look at the states that already have civil unions and listen to those gays who are married saying it that Civil Unions are failing because of many things are not working "functioning" within legal system. Look at the states, New Jersey and Vermont. They said the Civil Unions are not working right. They wanted to switch over to marriage. Paper Civil Union and a real marriage license is DIFFERENT because of many legal reasons. It's not successfully equal getting the same marriage rights. IRS is one other thing it is not successfully equal in the legal system when it comes to civil union. Look at New Jersey and Vermont.

DareDevil, you never been to gay marriage? Anybody you know who is in the relationship with kids? If not, why did you think it's best for the gays to have civil union. You are making this more "discrimination, separated but equal." I ask you why it is a privilege for you to say this without knowing what is behind the scene in the gay family with kids. It appears to me that you "judge a book by its cover." You didn't bother looking into first chapter of the book what it is about before putting back on the shelf.
 
PowerON said:
Afraid, it's not US you should blame, it's immigrant's religious that affect in begin. Isn't it?
Click to expand...

You obviously don't get it. :roll:

Go back, read, re-read and then comment again.
 
BradB08 said:
You obviously don't get it. :roll:

Go back, read, re-read and then comment again.
Click to expand...

Afraid not. This ain't Europe, this is America, we share many different country. It end up to people to decide. Then law have spoke. Quit whine and wait until next poll after more new next-gen kids after puff pot. Zing! They will vote.

I hate you. :)
 
PowerON said:
Afraid, it's not US you should blame, it's immigrant's religious that affect in begin. Isn't it?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the Eastern European immigrant population in Sacramento that have been campaigning against the GLBT??
 
Byrdie714 said:
Are you referring to the Eastern European immigrant population in Sacramento that have been campaigning against the GLBT??
Click to expand...


Are they residents of Sacto? Or did they go there from all over for some event?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top