• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Showdown on Same-Sex Marriage: Proposition 8 in California

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
As you may have noticed, the largest state in the Union currently has fully legalized same-sex marriage. On May 15th, the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22 and all other laws that state that marriage must be between a man and a woman, in a 4-3 decision. Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republicans.

While many states have chosen to ban same-sex marriage before such a policy was enacted, California faces a much different situation- a constitutional amendment that would override a judgement by the highest court. This amendment, which is currently to be voted on as Proposition 8, states that valid marriages must be heterosexual.

This is of course a issue of great tension in the state of California, which has close to forty million citizens. Public opinion is rather split, and grass-roots efforts on both sides are campaigning for and against the Proposition 8.

Do you happen to agree with the idea of the proposition?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sim

Duke1985

EatsApplePieShitsFreedom
If marriage is to have a place as a government institution, that affects things like taxes, right of attorney, so on and so forth, then it should be available to all Americans.

What is the harm I ask? What would homosexuals marrying damage?
The sanctity of marriage? Well if thats the case Britney Spears shouldn't have been allowed to marry and divorce in a 48 hour period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sim

SuiGeneris

blue 3
If there was truly seperation of church and state I don't even see how this could be a debate anymore, but of course, there's no such thing. Anyway, I agree completely with Duke, there is no legal reason why two gay men/women can't get married.
 

Duke1985

EatsApplePieShitsFreedom
If it isn't eligible for gays then I propose we remove any government issues benefits to marriage.

No tax break, no government issued license, no benefits to divorce cases (i.e. alimony, taking half your spouse's property) other than child custody cases the government will not get involved.

If the church wants to say who can get married, and they get their way, then the church owns marriage so keep it there and remove the government from it.

Thats my other solution.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
I'm all for letting CA do what CA wants to do.

But, if I lived there, I would vote for the Constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman.
 

Steerpike

Registered Member
As you may have noticed, the largest state in the Union currently has fully legalized same-sex marriage. On May 15th, the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22 and all other laws that state that marriage must be between a man and a woman, in a 4-3 decision. Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republicans.

While many states have chosen to ban same-sex marriage before such a policy was enacted, California faces a much different situation- a constitutional amendment that would override a judgement by the highest court. This amendment, which is currently to be voted on as Proposition 8, states that valid marriages must be heterosexual.

This is of course a issue of great tension in the state of California, which has close to forty million citizens. Public opinion is rather split, and grass-roots efforts on both sides are campaigning for and against the Proposition 8.

Do you happen to agree with the idea of the proposition?
If a society is just, then a society is equitable in its treatment of its citizens. If a society is equitable in its treatment of its citizens, then the legal respect of rights of a minority is not a decision for a majority to make the decision on. If the legal respect of rights of a minority is not a decision for a majority to make the decision on, then the majority has no right to vote on whether a minority is to have the same legally respected rights as themselves. Therefore, if a society is just, then the majority has no right to vote on whether a minority is to have the same legally respected rights as themselves.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
"Conventional people are roused to fury by departures from convention, largely because they regard such departures as a criticism of themselves." -Bertrand Russell
 

Nightsurfer

~Lucky 13 strikes again~
The last time we mixed the church and state we burned people at the stake. I say let them get married. It has no effect on me.
Live and let live in my book.
Man & woman, man & man, woman & woman, it makes no difference to me as long as they love each other then it's all good.
 
Last edited:

Syndicate

Chirp Chirp
Therefore, if a society is just, then the majority has no right to vote on whether a minority is to have the same legally respected rights as themselves.
Therein lies the weakness of Democracy. It's fair until you're the minority. :lick: You can't always rely on the mob to do you a favour (Don Corleone's a busy man).

I've said before, I'm pretty indifferent towards homosexuality and it's the same regards marriage. Simply because the dividing line is almost non existant in my mind, especially without religion playing a hugely significant role in my life/defining my beliefs. I'm not sure what marriage even is any more. I'd certainly struggle to make a legitimate case against gay marriage. Times are changing. You have to recognize it. Equality is constantly tested but to me this is inevitable. The old excuses only hold up so long. I for one welcome our new gay overlords!
 
Top