Question about prop 8

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Omega, Nov 5, 2008.

  1. Omega

    Omega Ω

    Thought I would pop in and ask a quick question about prop 8... I need some clarity on this... I heard that prop 8 passed. My bisexual girlfriend was fallowing this prop 8 very close. This prop is to ban gay marriage. Now what about all the guy couples that got married before this prop 8 was passed? Does it mean that there marriage is void? or does it simply mean that there is to be no more gay marriage... I live in California btw.
     

  2. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    Not an easy question to answer.... However from some of the articles I've read while researching this for you a common line was used:
    Now... that doesnt mean everything is concrete yet; Read these:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10909942

    If Prop. 8 passes, what about those who wed?

    What? Prop 8 Threatens Existing Marriages? You Don’t Say Whatever

    To be honest... I really dont know where they are gonna go with this. But I will say this, actually I dont have to say it because this article said it best already:

     
  3. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    California's Attorney General Jerry Brown said today that the state will defend the legality of any same-sex marriage that took place while it was legal. Sadly, he also said that his office was obliged to fight any challenge to the new law.

    Also today, high-profile lawyer Gloria Allred announced that she has indeed been retained to mount a challenge, predicated on the notion that the ban is counter to and therefore in violation of California's constitutional prohibition against discrimination. This is actually something I was wondering about myself; how can this state--or any state--have a law that allows one group of people more rights than another?

    In a related story, two older female couples rushed over to the Los Angeles County Registrar's office this morning and were wed by a clerk before a directive came down from Sacramento for that department to stop performing services for lesbians and gays. After being told that their marriages might not be legal and noting that Prop. 2 (a measure requiring free roaming space for egg-laying hens) had passed, one of the women said wryly, "California - where chickens have more rights than gay people."

    My take: you'd think that the full and proper formalization of a monogamous relationship would be something that traditionalists wanted for everyone, but no. And if my beloved daughter isn't allowed to marry the person she lives with and loves, I'll be damned if I'll wound her beautiful soul by ever asking a woman to marry me here. The privilege means nothing to me now. So, self-righteous pro-ban people, who is weakening and obsoleting the institution of marriage? Is it we, your opponents, advocating that right for everyone wishing to partake of it, or could it be it you, who wish to restrict it? Which group are marriage's true defenders? When I unravel the snarled ball of logic behind your argument for this proposition I find only age-old bigotry at its core.
     
  4. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    Interesting that they're obliged to do that. I'm somewhat surprised.

    They can argue that they aren't discriminating against anyone. Everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite gender, regardless of race, age (assuming legal age), gender, etc. And nobody's allowed to marry people of their own gender, regardless of race, age, etc too. Everyone's allowed to do the same stuff, just not necessarily what they want.

    Yeah, probably should have done it a couple days ago :rolleyes:

    There is bigotry, but for a LOT of people, it's something more. It's adherence to their religion. Now, maybe the religious rules had bigotry at their core, but there ARE people who are against gay marriage, and aren't bigoted.
     
  5. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    The AG's job is to uphold the law. I doubt that a progressive like Jerry Brown is too happy about the position he's forced to defend in this case, but the law is the law.

    I can marry the person I've fallen in love with, my daughter can't do the same. Shit ain't right, end of.

    I agree with this statement. While I suspect that anti-gay Judeo-Christian religious texts may have been written not by God speaking through his Prophets but by a bunch of isolated patriarchal peasants who saw buttsex as a waste of cum and lesbianism as insubordination, I recognize that there are many who actually believe that, in His wisdom, the creator of all stars and planets really is bothered by these things. From this came my repudiation of the Church, because I strive to live in harmony with my higher self. I had two choices, it seemed; I could either act like a Christian, or I could be one.

    It comes down to this: how could I be happy in Heaven, having been an instrument of intolerance on Earth? I'd sooner be cast into eternal torment (by a God who claims to love me, no less) for refusing to carry the flag of what I earnestly perceive to be most likely that of ancient superstitious misogynists and bigots, and in which place I would be comforted for all time by the knowledge that I lived my life following the path that I felt in my heart was right and good.

    Do you ever wonder whether life might not be a wicked hard test to see which we choose between directive and conscience, whenever the two conflict in our souls? The New Testament tells the story of a man who defied convention, literally turning the tables on the moneychangers in a temple because he knew what they were doing was wrong, even though entirely and universally sanctioned at the time. Fictional or not, this legendary act of rebellion against the religious norm set the stage for the transformation of the world. Now imagine, if you can, if Jesus had merely kept His mouth shut and gone along with the program.

    And that's why I voted against Prop. 8, and why I salute my brothers and sisters who are told that their love is wrong for continuing to fight--for themselves and all future generations--and for never betraying that love for the easier road, ultimately leading nowhere.
     
  6. Steerpike

    Steerpike Registered Member

    False.

    Discrimination in recognition of civil rights of people who have reached age of majority entails bigotry.
     
  7. comic-art

    comic-art Registered Member

    This is a law that will be in the courts for many years to come until as a previous member noted, it works it's way to the Supreme Court where a final decision with clarity will be made. First it will go through the lower courts, appeals courts, and finally the 9th district and then the California Supreme Court before getting to the Supreme Court. You're talking 3-8 years

    However that said, and from a historical perspective I can say this:

    Roe v Wade is a perfect comparison to see what will happen. Since Roe in 1967, the right has been trying to get this decision reversed in every possible way. Under GW Bush, the law itself has been undermined in numerous states by laws making certain procedures, birth control pills and condoms, and even sexual education illegal. It's an end run around the laws to force Roe v Wade into a very narrow area. This has been helped by Bush loading up the Supreme Court with very conservative jurists

    Even if Obama is lucky enough to appoint 2 judges with a more centrist or liberal philosophy and Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional (which it truly has to be), you can expect that for decades to come the right will fight against it as vigorously as they have Roe v Wade.

    What I don't understand is why anyone cares if gays can marry. So what. What's the big deal? They're people who love each other. Having an opportunity to get married does not force upon anyone anything. The law does not require you to marry a gay man or woman if you are not gay anymore than Roe v Wade forces anyone to have an abortion who does not want one. Why should I have rights that anyone else in this country does not? I am no less or more equal than any other person on this Earth and that goes for all others as well.

    If someone wants to get married and live in wedded bliss for all eternity.. more power to them whatever their sexual orientation.

    As long as your mate is of legal age, consenting and happy.. why should you be treated differently than I.

    I think it's way better to let consenting adults get married than a 17 year old governors daughter getting banged up and 2 kids needing to get married because of it.. What can be more topsy turvy in life??
     
  8. ysabel

    ysabel /ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5

    I'm confused with the purpose of the vote. You used to have prop 22 and people voted to define marriage as contract between man and woman in the CA civil code (and thus the only ones valid in CA). Several years after, the courts struck it down and same sex marriage was allowed.

    And now you're basically voting about the same issue on prop 8. People have voted once more against the right of same sex to marry, overruling the courts. What if the courts strike it down again? Can they do it?

    When does the cycle stop, if ever?
     
    Sim likes this.
  9. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    You hit the nail on the head Ysabel.

    Basically the people voice their opinions in the Vote, then special interest groups (in this case Gays) petition to have it removed. California Supreme court will strike down the past bill only to have it brought back up next election and voted the same again.

    I do feel that the game being played is more of a battle of the who can wait who out. Eventually one side will give up realizing its a bitter nasty cycle. That or it makes it up to the Federal Level and made Federal law... which beings as Marriage is recognized by the state not the Fedderal... I'm not sure it can. Unless maybe the case in the big court is based more on an infringement of rights and segregation policies. But I dont think to many people have been ballsy (or smart enough) to take that stance.
     
  10. comic-art

    comic-art Registered Member

    Ysabel

    it stops when people come to the conclusion that just because you, or I or someone else disagrees with your life - doesn't mean that they should force their life style on others.

    Meaning this: if you believe in God and I don't, that you shouldn't say I have to live your way because you disagree with my way. If I am supposed to respect your belief in God say, then you should respect my lack of belief in him (or her) as well.

    So if abortion or gay marriage is legal, everyone should respect it for what it is: the choice of people to live their lives in their way without you or they or me forcing my interests upon you.

    Gay marriage doesn't force anything on anyone else
    Abortion doesn't force anything on anyone else. You have a choice, if you wish to make a choice

    they are personal issues and unless the 2 sides come together to respect and honor their opposites, we will never be free as a nation because someone's rights have been outlawed
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2008

Share This Page