Uh, you're joking, right?

What does it take to overturn a state amendment? Another amendment, I'm sure, what about state supreme court?

Again. It depends on the state's constitution!

And why would I be joking?

The original ban wasn't an amendment and it was overturned by the California Supreme Court based on California's constitution. Now that the ban is a part of the California Constitution, they can't really do that.

California is full of utter epic fail

1A - WE'RE ****ING BROKE PEOPLE! This is wholly useless! It's called Amtrak and Southwest Airlines you people!

2 - A victory for PETA.

3 - Again. WE ARE ****ING BROKE! Jesus people. Enjoy your higher taxes.

8 - **** you fundies with a serious passion. ****. You.

9 - Eh.

11 - California Democrats all **** bricks when this happened. Now, people with half a mind have a real chance of winning!

12 - Long standing program in California that has had GREAT success for veterans. And with the housing crunch the way we're in, this should go towards some improvement.

Edit: Oh. I shall never ever take Black people seriously in California if they ever scream racism again. Voted for Prop 8? WHO'S THE BLACK KETTLE NOW, *****!

and now you realize why i never want to go to your state?

Our state kicked *** prior to this election.

In fact, things unrelated to politics (weather, food, overall sexiness) still kick ***. So there.

The LDS church wields a large amount of power. Guaranteed most those funds came from my state, Utah. I normally defend LDS, but what they're doing is bull****.


So, blacks and mormons have teamed up. See, those two groups get along. Two groups who have been oppressed throughout our history are oppressing another group together. Hate and ignorance unites people. As long as there is a more "inferior" group around to unite against.

Yeah. Damn LIBERAL POSITIONS of BANNING THINGS. If California had stuck to it's CONSERVATIVE ROOTS they wouldn't be going around creating MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.

oh look, LA's protesting it
silly CA

It's sad that there even is a Proposition to ban gay marriage.

seriously the whole marriage thing makes me almost sad. they really need to separate the benefits (taxes, next of kin, visitation rights ect...) from the religious institution. anything that gives you a legal benefit should fall under, and only under, a civil union. leave the ceremony, pomp, and religious aspects to the actual marriage. keep equality under the law without having to evoke religion at all.

It's called 'tyranny of the majority' and constitutions were invented in order to prevent this exact situation from happening.

Except California isn't doing it right.

You don't legislate rights.

Unfortunately for you people, Marriage is not a right.

Why is it okay for straight people to get married, then? You realize marriage is not inherently religious because marriage predates religion, right?

Religious folks really need to shift their ire towards gay marriage from the government to the other religions and religious institutions in the country. The government has no place dictating what marriage is, and thus should offer up the same benefits across the board to couples. The problem I have with gay marriage is strictly religious; I believe it to be misguided and contrary to Scripture. Soooo...if I get pissed off about it I get pissed off at churches that go ahead and allow it; not the government which shouldn't be involved in the least. If two gay men/women wish to go down to the courthouse and get married by a judge, I have zero problem with it. Why? Because in that instance it's not a marriage undertaken in a religious sense. If that same couple were to down to the Lutheran church and seek marriage, I'd be pissed off if the Lutheran church allowed it. But to ban it straight up, along the lines of California? Ridiculous.

I favor the abolishment of all common-law marriage and the institutions of Civil Unions, in which sex is not even a factor. You don't need to be ****ing someone to have a civil union with them, it's entirely a legal concept. It grants power of attorney.

There are two issues here with Gay Marriage.

1) The amendment that says you can't be coerced to testify against a spouse. A civil union, were I the one making the laws, would grant that same right.

2) The label. They don't want a 'civil union', they want a 'marriage'. If I was making the laws, they'd just have to deal with it. I'd let the churches keep the label 'marriage' (A marriage performed at a church would coincide with a civil union, much as they now coincide with a common-law marriage. But a civil union would NOT be called a marriage. This gives the gay people the substance of what they want : The RIGHTS associated with a marriage, while also keeping the people opposed to gay marriage happy)

I suppose I sort of agree with Nubs. Except that I don't get mad if a church performs a gay marriage, because I don't actually give a **** who's marrying who. Unless you want to marry me. Then we can talk about it.

Also. The protesters make me chuckle. The people voted on it, it passed. Yell at the people who voted yes, not the government.

You guys suck. Missouri's propositions were pretty cool this year. English is now Missouri's official language.



Yup

We didn't even have any state props. :/

We save them for the years when only the smart people vote. That is, not presidential elections.

Okay, that's fine, but why ban gay marriage and not all marriage? As it stands, straight couples are allowed to marry while gays are not, that seems pretty unequal to me. It has to be either both or none.

By the way, this is a graphical reference for wtf all the crazy overrated calissassians are talking about.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2008_ballot_measures

Here is my state's:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_2008_ballot_measures

I wouldn't ban gay marriage. I'd just not CALL it marriage.

Unless, of course, a church went ahead and 'married' them.

Did you even read what I posted?

And it can't be none. That would be terrible. The rights that come with a legal marriage are important; there's no other impartial way to apply them than through an institutionalized marriage/civil union system.

Also, you passed a gay marriage ban... but not the parental-notification on abortions for minors one? WTF California, at least you could be consistent.

I understand what you mean, but the problem is that as it stands, straight couples have the right to marry when gays to do. As far as I know, civil unions do not carry the same rights as a marriage. So like I said, you need to eliminate "marriage" all together and only have civil unions, or allow gays to be married.

If people were honestly worried about the "sanctity of marriage" instead of just gay-bashing, they'd write up an amendment to outlaw divorce. Fat chance.

So now I have to be mad at everything I disagree with?

Saying "But it passed! Hurrah!" sounds an awful lot like satisfaction, glee, happiness or some other emotion that is strongly associated with agreement.

Yeah. But I didn't say I agreed with the proposition itself, did I? Maybe I just like how it pisses you all off. Or maybe I like it whenever the people's will is done by a direct vote? Or maybe I wouldn't ban gay marriage out of a sense of fairness, but I actually personally hate those fags?

Or maybe I just said it to annoy you.

Seeing as how I hadn't posted until after your post, I'd say you're either backpeddling or an idiot. :downs:

You're hopeless.

As per usual, you have not addressed anything I actually said. This leads me to the conclusion that you are backpeddling and an idiot.

Yes, it's Nebraska that banned affirmative action; Colorado's measure seems to still be too close to call. It still might not take effect, though. It's been in court since before the election because a bunch of the signatures were invalid or later rescinded and there were many instances of petition workers giving false information about what the measure actually did. At some point a judge will have to decide if there was enough fraud to have kept the measure off the ballot, in which case it wouldn't take effect.

I don't have to reply directly to you to be aiming to annoy you.

Also.

'You' is the plural form of 'you'. Just FYI.

Yes, it is. And?

Not true. See Loving v. Virgina.

And even if that were true, equal protection under the law is a right.

One of my law professors made an interesting statement. He said, in effect, that the law, by definition, is discriminatory, we just allow for certain people to be discriminated against by popular consensus. His examples were things such as speed limit laws discriminate against people who like to drive fast, firearms laws discriminate against people who own firearms, and age of consent laws discriminate against people who "love" minors; we simply allow these laws to exist due to a popular consensus that such acts should be prohibited.

Your professor is correct, but those laws are in effect because those rights that are legislated against generally infringe on the rights of other people.

There is no base for someone to say that someone else getting married infringes on their rights.

Yeah, like Bobbert said. Driving fast can put yourself and others at risk, firearms can be used for shooting people, and age of content protects minors from pedos.

But a marriage doesn't affect anyone but the two getting married, and they chose to do it.