"I really feel sorry for the people who got married and then had this proposition shit on them."

The wording of the ballot wasn't retroactive, legally speaking their marriages are still %100 valid, but the legal and judicial systems operate more on public opinion than they'd like to think. It may be enforced as a retroactive ban just because most anti-gay rights groups think that's the victory they won, whether it was in the legal wording or not, and that part will ultimately be up to the courts to decide when it is challenged in the courts.

11/11/2008 4:05:48 PM

Quote :

"I really feel sorry for the people who got married and then had this proposition shit on them. It's not just about legal validation, it's also about legal rights to your spouse in times of emergency, death, etc. which they just lost. I couldn't imagine that happening to me on a personal level, I'd probably be so outraged that if in the unlucky chance that something did happen to my spouse, anyone who publicly supported such a ban would find themselves in a world of hurt if they crossed my path."

ok ^ he answered it.

[Edited on November 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM. Reason : edit]

11/11/2008 4:09:46 PM

Quote :

"It's sufficiently small that if Obama hadn't of run for President, the proposition wouldn't have passed."

False.

Quote :

"Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

11/11/2008 4:13:27 PM

11/11/2008 7:42:43 PM

Quote :

""Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.""

That doesn't say anything about Obama's effect on the Proposition. It shows first time voters voted against Prop 8. Black voter turnout was very high, and they voted over 2 to 1 in favor of the proposition. Example, a black female you voted for Bill Clinton, but didn't vote in the past 2 presidential elections, came out and voted for Obama and voted yes on Prop 8. She wouldn't have voted if say, Edwards, was the D candidate. First time voters != Voters who wouldn't have voted if it weren't for Obama. That is the demographic I am talking about.

Oh, and from the same site, refering to how young black voters voted for Prop 8:

Quote :

"These figures are not available for young black voters"

11/11/2008 8:29:18 PM

Seriously, this thread has included all types of debate, including serious speculation as to whether or not the guy who played Sulu on Star Trek is a credible source. I think we've exhausted all our lifelines, folks. So let's just get opinionated! I don't know wanna know your thoughts on Prop 8, Prop 2, black people, Mormons, or the Constitution. I wanna know whether or not you think gay people should have their unions recognized by the state in the same manner and with the same rights that straight unions enjoy. Pick a side!

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK
agentlion
tromboner950
kwsmith2
Supplanter
NyM410


Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:
TKE-Teg

11/12/2008 6:06:29 AM

Quote :

"Example, a black female you voted for Bill Clinton, but didn't vote in the past 2 presidential elections, came out and voted for Obama and voted yes on Prop 8. She wouldn't have voted if say, Edwards, was the D candidate. First time voters != Voters who wouldn't have voted if it weren't for Obama. That is the demographic I am talking about."

So basically, I'm supposed to believe your hypothesizing based on no factual data over a statistical analysis from the guy who called 49 of 50 states in the election. Sorry, not good enough. If you're going to try and claim the Obama turn out lead to the passage of prop 8, you're going to have to provide some actual evidence, as Nate Silver basically skewered that argument.

11/12/2008 9:20:37 AM

^^Entirely against.

11/12/2008 9:48:05 AM

Everyone against should be ashamed of themselves.

These arguments against sound eerily similar to those in Loving v. Virginia.

Have fun explaining to your great grand kids how you were campaigning against your fellow citizen's civil rights.

11/12/2008 10:04:59 AM

I voted against Prop 8, if that answers your question BridgetSPK

11/12/2008 11:00:58 AM

add me to the list AGAINST prop 8

it's extremely interesting living in the Bay Area to see how much the outcome has affected me personally. the LGBT community isn't a just subculture out here like many places i have lived. it's so intertwined and integrated with the straight community and mainstream society that i cringe when i think of how homophobic and intolerant the people who voted in favor of prop 8 must be.

11/12/2008 11:06:38 AM

Yes for Civil Unions, No for Marriages (but I'm one of those who also believes marriage should be removed as a gov't institution...)

11/12/2008 11:15:41 AM

^^^^be ashamed for yourself, for the moral decay of the country. I'll be proud of my grandchilden, who'll know that marriage is a religious contract between a MAN and a WOMAN.

11/12/2008 11:58:32 AM

^ your kids will turn out gay I bet. Just like Dick Cheney's.

11/12/2008 11:59:47 AM

Marriage is not a religious ceremony in California. Or at least it doesn't have to be.

The last 2 CA weddings I've been to have been non-religious. No priest, no prayers, just a friend of the couple who "officiated" the union.

[Edited on November 12, 2008 at 12:15 PM. Reason : 2]

11/12/2008 12:13:43 PM

Quote :

"for the moral decay of the country"

Yeah, I feel sure the slave owners were saying the same thing back in the day.

11/12/2008 1:49:14 PM

Quote :

"but I'm one of those who also believes marriage should be removed as a gov't institution..."

So you're Libertarian enough to see that the government's involvement in marriage is wrong, but not enough to see that Separate but Equal is worse?

Interesting.

11/12/2008 2:08:07 PM

Quote :

"marriage is a religious contract between a MAN and a WOMAN"

LOL, yes, civil marriage is a "religious contract." Your grasp of basic civics is actually worse than Sarah Palin's, and that's saying something.

11/12/2008 2:09:43 PM

Quote :

"marriage is a religious contract between a MAN and a WOMAN."

as it stands now, marriage is a governmental contract between whoever the government decides it should be between. the religious aspects of marriage serve no governmental or legal purpose except for the feelings of those involved.

11/12/2008 2:12:00 PM

^^actually NO (regarding my intelligence), since I hold the belief that gov't should have no place in marriage. And yes I realize its relationship in the gov't now

As far as Palin, she's smarter than both you and I, especially in the running of a government. Lets not be so naive and ignorant. After all, she is the leader of a state that is larger than 90% of the countries of the world.

[Edited on November 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM. Reason : k]

11/12/2008 3:09:06 PM

Quote :

"actually NO, since I hold the belief that gov't should have no place in marriage."

then i assume you're willing to accept the consequences of this? e.g. no joint-file tax returns, no legal shared names, higher insurance premiums on single accounts, increased legal wrangling when your spouse dies because as far as the government is concerned you have no more right to his/her possessions as your neighbor, government run schools that don't recognize a child's parents as a couple, etc?

Quote :

"As far as Palin, she's smarter than both you and I"

hey now, careful there bud.
I'm the one who has offered to help you with your Excel 101 questions (message_topic.aspx?topic=548108) and I know for a fact that Smoker4 would whip yours, mine, and Sarah Palin's asses if we're going to start comparing IQs here

11/12/2008 3:19:33 PM

Quote :

"After all, she is the leader of a state that is larger than 90% of the countries of the world."

Is Africa one of those countries?
What about all the countries in NAFTA?

[Edited on November 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2008 3:26:45 PM

Quote :

"since I hold the belief that gov't should have no place in marriage"

This refrain is getting tired, it's just an easy way to dodge the fundamental question. Do you, or do you not, realize that civil marriage is different from religious marriage? Yes or no?

And then please justify to me why same-sex marriage is any more immoral, or further decays the institution, beyond what we have in place now. Right now a couple can get married while worshiping a golden calf, praying to Satan, and burning Ronald Reagan in effigy -- and the government will grant them a marriage license all the same. And if that's not sacrilege, then what is.

More so while I have sympathy for the argument of civil libertarians that the government's place in marriage is questionable -- it's not realistic. I don't live in fantasy-land utopia. It's not that hard to abolish Separate but Equal and ponder the fantasy world later while smoking our peyote.

[Edited on November 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM. Reason : foo]

11/12/2008 3:29:17 PM

Quote :

"she is the leader of a state that is larger than 90% of the countries of the world."

Your point being???

11/12/2008 4:27:48 PM

^^I'm sorry. Yes I know there's a difference between religious and civil marriage. I guess I'm against the term marriage for gov't b/c it has religious connotations. As far as gay couples getting the same rights, tax breaks, etc I don't have a problem with it.

The Africa thing was taken out of context, gimme a break that is a weak point.

Quote :

"hey now, careful there bud. I'm the one who has offered to help you with your Excel 101 questions (message_topic.aspx?topic=548108) and I know for a fact that Smoker4 would whip yours, mine, and Sarah Palin's asses if we're going to start comparing IQs here"

Hey hey now. I was in no way was calling myself, or you dumb

[Edited on November 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM. Reason : or Smoker4]

11/12/2008 4:51:52 PM

I completely disagree with gay marriage from a social/spiritual perspective.

But, I don't disagree with the right to civil gay marriage. Heck, you can marry your dog if you want (beast marriage). Of course, problems arise when your dog doesn't earn any income and you file jointly to evade taxes.

So on that note, in our current political system, everyone has the right to get married to whomever they choose, but there have to be stipulations/regulations to prevent beast marriage until society accepts it as a norm (we'll cross that road when we get there).

11/12/2008 4:58:15 PM

Quote :

"So you're Libertarian enough to see that the government's involvement in marriage is wrong, but not enough to see that Separate but Equal is worse?"

I believe that committed homosexual coupes should have the right to share all the legal rights, protections, and responsibilities as traditionally married couples. However, because of religious convictions, I am very uneasy about using the term marriage to describe said legal agreement.

Quote :

"Do you, or do you not, realize that civil marriage is different from religious marriage? Yes or no?"

I believe civil marriage is different from religious marriage and would like to draw the distinction. Civil unions and the abolishment of state marriage is the best way to accomplish this.

11/12/2008 4:59:20 PM

Seriously, this thread has included all types of debate, including serious speculation as to whether or not the guy who played Sulu on Star Trek is a credible source. I think we've exhausted all our lifelines, folks. So let's just get opinionated! I don't know wanna know your thoughts on Prop 8, Prop 2, black people, Mormons, or the Constitution. I wanna know whether or not you think gay people should have their unions recognized by the state in the same manner and with the same rights that straight unions enjoy. Pick a side!

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK
agentlion
tromboner950
kwsmith2
Supplanter
NyM410

Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:
TKE-Teg
TULIPlovr

Three more people almost joined the list. Saying "against prop 8" is not the same as saying "for gay civil unions/marriages." Also, in my scenario, we have no control over what the institution will be called, only that it will be one term for all couples, no distinction between gay and straight unions.

^Gay people can get religious marriages already. You understand that, right? This is just about what they will be called in legal documents and tax forms and shit. It doesn't really matter if those documents say "marriage" instead of "civil union." That doesn't somehow open to the door to religious marriages for gays...that door is already open. I'm sorry if you're offended in your faith.

[Edited on November 12, 2008 at 7:31 PM. Reason : sss]

11/12/2008 7:25:36 PM

Quote :

"The last 2 CA weddings I've been to have been non-religious. No priest, no prayers, just a friend of the couple who "officiated" the union."

My sister is getting married in April and it is a non-religious wedding... Though the person "officiating" is a minister there will be no prayers, etc at the wedding... Funny thing is my parents, who are very religious Catholics don't mind at all...

11/12/2008 8:03:43 PM

fine

i voted against prop 8 and i support gay marriage

happy?

11/12/2008 8:18:45 PM

Alright, y'all...we got another name to add to the list! Woo!

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK
agentlion
tromboner950
kwsmith2
Supplanter
NyM410
EightyFour

Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:
TKE-Teg
TULIPlovr

11/12/2008 8:31:25 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/12/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

Quote :

"Judge opens door for gay marriage in Connecticut # Story Highlights # NEW: First license issued minutes after ruling; quick ceremonies planned # Same-sex couples cleared to get marriage licenses at clerks' offices # Ruling follows state Supreme Court decision allowing marriage, not just civil unions # Victory for gay couples follows disappointment in California vote"

Looks like there are some more liberal states than CA out there these days.

11/12/2008 8:50:54 PM

HERE IS THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM:

GOVERNMENTS CAN ONLY GRANT CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL COUPLES.

CHURCHES CAN ONLY GRANT MARRIAGES FOR WHATVER COUPLES THEY CHOOSE.

CIVIL UNIONS ARE WHAT GETS THE GOVERNMENT BENEFITS.

MARRIAGES ARE ONLY FOR RECOGNITION BY THE THE CHURCH.

PROBLEM SOLVED. THE END.

[Edited on November 12, 2008 at 9:31 PM. Reason : SPELLING MOTHER FUCKER.]

11/12/2008 9:31:34 PM

I agree. Would you like to join the list, God?

11/13/2008 1:38:29 AM

sign me up for against

11/13/2008 1:56:49 AM

Alright, y'all...we got another name to add to the list! Woo!

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK
agentlion
tromboner950
kwsmith2
Supplanter
NyM410
EightyFour

Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:
TKE-Teg
TULIPlovr
TaterSalad

11/13/2008 1:58:02 AM

Quote :

"Gay people can get religious marriages already. You understand that, right? This is just about what they will be called in legal documents and tax forms and shit. It doesn't really matter if those documents say "marriage" instead of "civil union." That doesn't somehow open to the door to religious marriages for gays...that door is already open. I'm sorry if you're offended in your faith."

No doubt they can in certain sects and faiths, but in my particular tradition they can't. Also, as I stated, I'm in favor of civil unions. Even if I won't support any sort of religious blessing of their union, I'm pragmatic enough to understand the real need, and sympathetic with the inequity of the current situation, to be open to civil unions. I think of it as a fair compromise. So for the sake of your exercise BridgetSPK, you can put me on the "For Gay Civil Unions" column.

11/13/2008 1:34:41 PM

I am for gay civil unions but I am against calling it 'marriage' only for the fact that marriage has religious meanings for a lot of folks. I have no problem with gay people joining together for all legal purposes in union. the government should have no say in it other than the license.

11/13/2008 1:44:54 PM

I guess you missed it, but sign me up for "For", Bridget

11/13/2008 1:47:09 PM

12/3/2008 4:31:53 PM

haha good lord with is that

12/3/2008 5:00:26 PM

yeah, that should really help with the whole "hollywood is just pushing a godless, liberal agenda on the rest of us" argument.....

12/3/2008 6:06:19 PM

Quote :

"Gay people can get religious marriages already. You understand that, right? This is just about what they will be called in legal documents and tax forms and shit. It doesn't really matter if those documents say "marriage" instead of "civil union." That doesn't somehow open to the door to religious marriages for gays...that door is already open. I'm sorry if you're offended in your faith."

A civil union in the US does not currently carry the same legal rights and benefits that a marriage does. For example, having a civil union in one state doesn't mean the union is recognized anywhere else in the US. Similarly, since the federal government doesn't recognize civil unions, you can't file joint taxes or get the tax breaks that would go to married couples. Here's a big list about the legal benefits of marriage: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

It's more than "what it's called." There are fundamental differences between the two as it stands right now. If the government won't call it "marriage" (I could really care less about the word itself, but I'd like to again point out that MARRIAGE has been around for much longer than Christianity and therefore shouldn't be considered a "religious" thing), they need to work on increasing the rights of those in civil unions so they match married couples' rights.

I'm for gay marriage, btw. I don't care about the religious part of it: churches don't have to marry people if they don't want. It's a civil right they shouldn't be denied simply because of their sexual orientation.

[Edited on December 3, 2008 at 7:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2008 7:10:29 PM

Quote :

"marriage is a religious contract between a MAN and a WOMAN."

Marriage is also a legal contract between two adult people. All the gov't should do is recognize the contract between them. The gov't has no place deciding who can get married.

The gov't's job is to protect individual rights...not religious institutions.

Supplanter and I don't agree on much...but on this we do.

12/3/2008 7:30:10 PM

GO GO GAY MARRIAGE

12/5/2008 8:12:19 PM

Thank you LunaK. That was hilarious.

And as for the whole new "church does marriage and gov't does civil unions thus what's the problem?" sentiment...I totally called that 2 months ago.

I just live in the dirty dirty and this smoke signal just got to tww now.

12/6/2008 2:47:42 AM

I fully understand the legal aspect of contracts and such that goes along with marriage, but for moral reasons I oppose it. It gives tacit support to bastardize an institution that is the most sacred union two people (a man and woman) can make on this earth. And I really don't care if you agree with me or not, I'm not held accountable to what others may think.

[Edited on December 6, 2008 at 9:23 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2008 9:13:53 AM

I don't care one way or the other, but if marriage is going to be opened up. It is only right to open it to everybody, not just gays and straights.

Inter-Species Marriage
Polyandrous Marriage
Polygynous Marriage
1st-Cousin Marriage

12/6/2008 9:55:28 AM

http://current.com/items/89003460/let_my_partner_stay.htm

[Edited on December 6, 2008 at 12:14 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2008 12:12:19 PM

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=361326

Quote :

"SAN FRANCISCO - California's attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now joining forces with homosexual activists to overturn the results of Proposition 8. ... "It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote.""

12/20/2008 11:00:14 AM