It takes 2/3 majority to amend the state constitution. Prop 8 did not meet the 2/3 majority. Furthermore, using a constitution to take something away from a group of people goes against what a constitution is fundamentally about, which is defining the rights of citizens.

Our state supreme court has already ruled that any law that prohibits gay marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Amending the constitution to prohibit gay marriage would then make the constitution contradict itself.

Semantics. I'm pretty sure you understood what Emon was saying even though he didn't say "allow one group to exercise a right and prevent another group from exercising it."

No, it protects our fundamental rights.

Ohhhh yes they can. The PATRIOT Act would like to have a word with you.

I personally consider California a lost cause so I don't really have a dog in this hunt but I've heard some screwy stuff like "this is such a significant change to the constitution" that it requires 2/3. So there are less significant changes that don't require 2/3? I don't know. I do know that I don't like the wording of the proposition, or how I remember it being worded because doesn't it actually say that it eliminates the rights of homosexuals to marry? Maybe that is not the text and the description of the propostion, I don't know, but even saying that seems to undermine the arguments for the propostition.



I don't agree with that opinion. Justices must interpret the constitutionality of issues when they are not specifically addressed. If the issue is specifically addressed there is no contradiction.

To be honest, if I really cared about California I would inform myself better on the constitutional issues of the state. I can sympathize for all parties involved. Prop 8 seems to be yet another backlash from the majority of people in California that seem fed up with having gay marriage rammed down their throat. Most people nationally seem to prefer the non-contemporary definitions of marriage which have never included homosexuals.

I just don't get this hard on for gay marriage. Many of the people that prostelitize for it seem to demeen traditional marriage in the same breath. In this very thread all of the issues with marriage, whether it be divorce or Spears are pointed out to degrade marriage. Then there are those that suggest only through gay marriage can one obtain the same priveledges that married couples are entitled to. Not true. Wills, powers of attorney, etc. all can be done that grant the same powers that common law normally affords married couples. And with regards to taxes, while I don't pretend to know the tax laws of each state, it wasn't until GWB did away with the marriage tax penalty that married couples were made equal with their single working counter parts.

It says exactly that. Here's the exact text:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Well, Butt Buddies would exclude most lesbians and presumes that all gay "marriages" would be sexual in nature. There are other ways for governments to provide similar priviledges to gay couples that do not, at the same time, force an unwilling society to accept a redefined definition of marriage.

FAIL

What, you want to protect the meaning of the word? Marriage didn't used to mean what it means today. In Greco-Roman culture, marriage wasn't a governmental or even religious institution. It was just two people getting together. Two people were "married" if they chose to live their lives together.

Bah being a Calissassian I have a huge urge to participate in this thread but there's really nothing else for me to say that hasn't already been said.

See, I hate that. To me it is more than semantics. Even as an opponent to homosexual marriage I think that is terrible but I can't say I would have voted against it. It's just the wrong way to approach it, though.

Compassionate conservatism at work.


Circa 1968: marriage by definition didn't include interracial couples.

The arguments are really similar too. It's bad for society! It's a redefinition of marriage! It isn't natural! The Bible says its wrong!

However, the courts "forced an unwilling society to accept a redefined definition of marriage" in order to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment and do the right thing in Loving v. Virginia (and what a fitting case name).

In fact, it took Alabama until 2000 to pass an amendment removing their interracial marriage ban, and even then it only passed by 59%.

Damn gays and their butt secks

So you are ceding that even in Greco-Roman culture the definition of marriage did not include gay marriage? Look, this is not as insignificant as you might believe. The entire uproar in this debate is founded in the definition of the word. Sure, there are people that will fight what is perceived as a legitimization of homosexual relationships no matter what but simply having some distinction will quiet much of the debate. Of course there are those that consider any distinction between the two as bigotted but the fact is that there are many things that are not equal between things such as race, gender, etc.

If we consider that the most basic reason beyond any religious beliefs for heterosexual unions is procreation, then homosexual unions fail that test as well.



Yay, I failed with a correct assumption! I'll take that kind of failure any day.

That is not true.

It's actually incredibly striking just how similar they are. From the Virginia trial court's opinion in Loving:





If we're going to be talking about what the definition of marriage did and did not include, it'd be helpful of you to supply that definition.

I wasn't saying that. I was merely mentioning that I was surprised to find out that the California process for Constitutional amendment only requires a simple majority.

I live in Canada.

Same-sex marriages are legal.

Oh yeah, and we also banned slavery before the US. w00t for us.

I think the lesson here is... if Canada did it, then you should do it too. xD

But seriously, banning gay marriage because it "goes against god" is dumb. They might as well ban Christmas, seeing as how 95% of like, everybody celebrates it yet isn't Christian and isn't acknowledging it's true meaning...

Hmm, you quoted me, you addressed the humorous part of my quote, but you completely failed to address my actual point.
And forcing an unwilling society? This isn't the 1950's you know, (most of) society has evolved, maybe you should get with the times?

Oops, you're right. Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967, not 1968.

But okay, I'll bite... how were laws that banned interracial marriage not excluding interracial couples from marriage?

[quote=Michael MacFarlane]It's actually incredibly striking just how similar they are.[/quote]Yeah, in 2004, when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he tried to use an anti-interracial law that was passed in 1913 to prevent gay marriages. Pretty shameless.

Hilarity: Speaking of Massachusetts, remember how gay marriage is going to somehow magically "weaken traditional marriage" and destroy families?

Which states have the lowest divorce rates in the country? Massachusetts and Connecticut, respectively. The only two states where gay marriage has been legalized.

Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't degrade marriage. We're just talking about what is actually occurring in the realm of heterosexual marriage. The behavior of the people getting divorced degrades marriage.

Hey, irrational speculation is the only debating tool left for conservatives. Don't you bring facts into this, you'll ruin his fun.

That tactic is used just as much by the liberal types are well.

The US Supreme Court legalised interracial marriage in 1967[1], when 72% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. The majority of Americans didn't support interracial marriage until 1991. [2]. If it weren't for your activist judges, your country would truly be absurd.

Yeah, but we have a whole load of other tools to mix it up with. Conservatives are a one-trick pony.

-yawn-

Dude... Christ was put to death by his own people was he not?, so im a bit lost over your ramblings. I don't have idols in that sense, but I gave up on the concept of faith ages ago. But you believe in something, I cant really make too much of a deal about that.

Wookie06, you quoted me on the 'If God...'. I was not trying to say that there is a God, but there are people in this hallowed world who do believe he exists. But the problem with having a religiuos belief you've got to stick by it, but I've got a problem with the fact (particulay in the US), that religion has become the basis of politics and is being used to get people into line.

Its like having a modern version of having Holy Roman Empire that based its laws on religious teachings. Personally I don't like that concept too much. I have become cynical of some faiths largely as there is so much hypocrasy. For example I think some genocide that happend around 250-200 years ago when Russian monarch know Ivan the Terrible decided to kill 100,000 people in Kazan because they weren't Christians, and claimed he did it the name of God. And considering that first commandment says 'thou shalt kill', I call that hypocrisy where Im concered.

Also explain why the Vatican is filthy rich when most of the Catholic faith are poor, why there are so many gay clergymen around the world and why do we have to base laws on religious gorunds? Im not religious or anything.. but i've got an open mind and tell you the truth, If Jesus did exist and came to this earth, he'd not like the fact a religion in his name had spread its faith through violence and hate.

Morals? We've got too freaking many.
I'd thought I go and defend my viewpoint in any case

Feel free to discuss
Edd.

*double post*

Apologies.

So, why are you opposed to homosexual marriage again?

Probably the buttsecks. This thread could turn epic.

/me hugs dalf

.

By true meaning, you mean the winter solstice, right?


He's quoting Corinthians. We don't expect you to understand it.

Jon`C makes a compelling argument.

/me hugs mantrain

It's unfortunate that our government discriminates on the basis of a 2000+ year old book of questionable origin.

That has been retranslated and re-written over and over and over

It doesn't. The people do.

First, get rid of this idea that the government and the people are separate entities.

Second, stop trying to personify amortized leadership, and stop expecting politicians to behave to a higher standard than the 'common' man.

When your government is controlled by the same people that believe in said book, the government is indeed discriminating. You can blame the sheeple that voted them in to power but when you have a seemingly neverending cycle of ignorance that goes back generations & generations, you can hardly blame the people whose very education & way of life is dictated by said government.

Third, the Bible was compiled around the year 300 AD and was first translated from Greek into German by Martin Luther in 1521. Modern translations are taken from the original Greek (being the only part that is of actual consequence to real Christians; the Talmud is terribly irrelevant and Paul made it quite clear in his letters that Christians are to avoid perpetuating Jewish myths).

Fourth, it's not discriminatory. You can quote parts of the Bible out of context to give it a discriminatory intonation, though. The Bible condemns homosexual intercourse because it's unclean and unsafe. Leviticus was written before we knew how to suture a perforated colon or, indeed, before the invention of soap. Laying with a man as you would with a woman would have been a really bad idea 1000+ BC.

Either Jon'C is quoting in satire or is truely religious. If its the latter I am actually shocked.

I love Joncee with all my currently available man-love.