Prop 8 Announcement

[Vermilion]

The California Supreme Court just announced that it will release its decision on the fate of Proposition 8 on Tuesday, May 26.

Wait and see...

 

[john-the-author]

Seriously crossing fingers here. I'm hoping that we'll not only have legal gay marriages in California, but a finger deep in the eye to the Christan fascists as well.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Seriously crossing fingers here. I'm hoping that we'll not only have legal gay marriages in California, but a finger deep in the eye to the Christan fascists as well.

Hope springs eternal but not confidence. I fully expect the Court to validate all the legal marriages that took place but not to invalidate Prop 8. But I hope that they do.

 

[JamesSD]

Hope springs eternal but not confidence. I fully expect the Court to validate all the legal marriages that took place but not to invalidate Prop 8. But I hope that they do.

That seems to be what the media is expecting, which presents an odd legal situation to say the least.

A proposition and reversal in 2010 seems likely either way.

 

[john-the-author]

Hope springs eternal but not confidence. I fully expect the Court to validate all the legal marriages that took place but not to invalidate Prop 8. But I hope that they do.

That's what I'm thinking is going to be the case, but indeed, it could be nice.

 

[Safe_Bet]

The California Supreme Court just announced that it will release its decision on the fate of Proposition 8 on Tuesday, May 26.

Wait and see...

Which means the have already written and prepared their ruling... they are just building "suspense"!!!!

WHAT A BUNCH OF FREAKIN' DRAMA QUEENS!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Which means the have already written and prepared their ruling... they are just building "suspense"!!!!

WHAT A BUNCH OF FREAKIN' DRAMA QUEENS!

Well, this is California, yanno.

 

[Carnevil9]

So why do they bother having these propositions in the first place? If the courts can blithely overturn them whenever they don't agree with the will of the voters?

 

[Safe_Bet]

So why do they bother having these propositions in the first place? If the courts can blithely overturn them whenever they don't agree with the will of the voters?

Oh, geee, I'm sorry Mr. Bigoted Asshat. I apologize that your prejudicial, homophobic brothers and sisters don't get to stomp all over MY rights as a citizen of this country. Gosh, just cuz you think I and my kind don't deserve the same rights as you MF'ers, maybe we should get rid of everybody's dick and then we wouldn't have this problem....

I'd GLADLY start with your's asshole!

 

[Carnevil9]

Oh, geee, I'm sorry Mr. Bigoted Asshat. I apologize that your prejudicial, homophobic brothers and sisters don't get to stomp all over MY rights as a citizen of this country. Gosh, just cuz you think I and my kind don't deserve the same rights as you MF'ers, maybe we should get rid of everybody's dick and then we wouldn't have this problem....

I'd GLADLY start with your's asshole!

While that is an impressive display of unprovoked hatred, it hardly qualifies as an answer to a serious question.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The issue in a nutshell is: GAYS want their status changed from FREAK to OKAY. They demand to be embraced by the general society.

But what they insist on ignoring are the IN YOUR FACE QUEERS who make the status issue political. WE'RE QUEER AND WE'RE HERE! is the gay brand and registered TradeMark.

SAFE_BET is one of them. Her AVs constantly remind everyone which team she plays for. Youre compelled to wonder what in hell she'd be if she werent queer, what new drumbeat would she march to.

 

[Liar]

So why do they bother having these propositions in the first place? If the courts can blithely overturn them whenever they don't agree with the will of the voters?

Because arbitrary mob rule does not trump fundamental individual rights.

You're asking the wrong question. The real question is: Why are not propositions like these vetted so that they are undoubtedly in line with the national and state constitution before allowing them onto a ballot?

If the will of the voters was to outlaw Carnevil9's right to own a gun, for no logic reason other than "we don't want him to have one", would you be cool with that?

If not, your arguent is weak sauce.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

There is no fundamental right unless you can make it happen regardless of the opposition to it. A right is unassailable.

 

[Liar]

Whatevah monkier you wish to tag to it, bubba. it still trumps the whim of whatever the loudest mob is touting at the moment. That's why there are firmaments and not just clauses to law.

 

[JericBuckley]

I don't mean to just link a video as a reply, but this commercial here singlehandedly convinced me that I hope Prop 8 gets the axe. It rolls up all the retarded talking points I've ever seen and manages to do it all with a collectively straight face, which I consider to be an achievement.

BUH BUH BUH IT WILL CONFUSE OUR CHILDREN well maybe you shouldn't be smothering them so much

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Whatevah monkier you wish to tag to it, bubba. it still trumps the whim of whatever the loudest mob is touting at the moment. That's why there are firmaments and not just clauses to law.

LIAR

One of the Left's delusions is paper stops bullets. Another is laws jump out of statute books and come to your rescue like the cavalry.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't mean to just link a video as a reply, but this commercial here singlehandedly convinced me that I hope Prop 8 gets the axe. It rolls up all the retarded talking points I've ever seen and manages to do it all with a collectively straight face, which I consider to be an achievement.

BUH BUH BUH IT WILL CONFUSE OUR CHILDREN well maybe you shouldn't be smothering them so much

I saw parts of that same tape during the campaign, but I usually saw all the fallacies it was trying to promote. The parents seem to think they have a right and a duty to fill their children's minds with any rubbish and lies they feel like. I guess members of the notorious Phelps family and the
Fundamentalist Mormon Church feel the same way, which should probably constitute child abuse. After all, parents don't have absolute control over their children as they do over their dogs or horses.

If the State Supremes uphold Prop. 8, which I think they will, I guess the next step would be to put a new proposition on the next ballot to repeal it. This tends to be an expensive undertaking, but it's worth it, and advocates of gay marriage have tons of money to spend on the campaign. There is probably a plan afoot right now to do so.

It is my understanding that the most expensive part is gathering the hundreds of thousands of signatures that would be necessary. Usually this is done by professionals, who get paid a certain amount per name. This might not be the case, if enough volunteers can be found to do the work.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Even the military knows which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Handley_Page]

Oh, geee, I'm sorry Mr. Bigoted Asshat. I apologize that your prejudicial, homophobic brothers and sisters don't get to stomp all over MY rights as a citizen of this country. Gosh, just cuz you think I and my kind don't deserve the same rights as you MF'ers, maybe we should get rid of everybody's dick and then we wouldn't have this problem....

I'd GLADLY start with your's asshole!

Forgive me for asking, but what about the rights of the Majority who couldn't give a damn one way or the other ?. They (we?) don't need a shrieking harpie or drag queen yelling at the top of its voice thet they have the right to demand something.
We have a bit of a row about this in the UK. Most of us don't mind someone shacking up in same-sex union; we just don't want it ramming down out throats as if it was important.

 

[Emperor_Nero]

Forgive me for asking, but what about the rights of the Majority who couldn't give a damn one way or the other ?. They (we?) don't need a shrieking harpie or drag queen yelling at the top of its voice thet they have the right to demand something.
We have a bit of a row about this in the UK. Most of us don't mind someone shacking up in same-sex union; we just don't want it ramming down out throats as if it was important.

Normally I stay out of these debates, but this one just demanded a response.

First off, if the only thing that bothers you about the process is the whining that goes along with it and you don't really care one way or the other, why wouldn't you just say it's OK for same-sex marriages just to quiet the debate and get the "drag queens" and "harpies" to stop their "shrieking" and stop bothering you?

The gay community is asking only for rights given to all heterosexual members of society (or the "majority"). In the US (of which this debate is specifically about) there are many rights that legally are written for people involved in marriage -- not civil unions -- thus creating a large grey area. Not the least of which are rights concerning health insurance coverage and even life-and-death decisions in a hospital. Yes, with a civil union it is possible to legally cover these things, but not without much more effort, time and often significant legal costs to leap through the hoops created by the grey area differentiating marriage and civil union.

In the end, the debate is about semantics in contract law, the right to use the word marriage instead of civil union. Yes, there are emotional parts to the argument, but legally it boils down to the semantics to help close problematic legal loopholes.

So, to them it is an important issue ... a very important issue that in some cases could literally boil down to a life and death difference -- and to discuss it or treat it like anything other than an important issue is another demeaning shot of disrespect aimed at a minority group.

 

[Carnevil9]

Because arbitrary mob rule does not trump fundamental individual rights.

You're asking the wrong question. The real question is: Why are not propositions like these vetted so that they are undoubtedly in line with the national and state constitution before allowing them onto a ballot?

If the will of the voters was to outlaw Carnevil9's right to own a gun, for no logic reason other than "we don't want him to have one", would you be cool with that?

If not, your arguent is weak sauce.

So if you think it is okay for courts to overturn a popular vote, then you must be cool with the 2000 SCOTUS decision that made GWB the President, eh?

 

[Handley_Page]

In the end, the debate is about semantics in contract law, the right to use the word marriage instead of civil union. Yes, there are emotional parts to the argument, but legally it boils down to the semantics to help close problematic legal loopholes.

.

My apologies.
I obviously got the wrong end of the stick.
What prompted my comment was that we in the UK have had this shrieking & wailing from a variety of (minority) groups including Gays. Our Law of Civil Union has the same effect as Marriage, for the purposes of Wills, estates, etc..
I had not realised that this is not the case in the 'States.

HP

 

[freshface]

My apologies.
I obviously got the wrong end of the stick.
What prompted my comment was that we in the UK have had this shrieking & wailing from a variety of (minority) groups including Gays. Our Law of Civil Union has the same effect as Marriage, for the purposes of Wills, estates, etc..
I had not realised that this is not the case in the 'States.

HP

It's great that they get the same rights as heterosexual couples, but why is it so horrible that they want what their neighbors have? In our society, marriage is how a couple tells the world that they are committed to create a life together. If the Law of Civil Union has the same effect as marriage, then you're OK with doing away with marriage completely? See no reason not to have your marriage turned into a civil union? Separate but equal is really separate but unequal, whether you're talking about relationships or drinking fountains or schools.

Getting back to your first question, how exactly are your rights being trampled by homosexuals who want marriage? If you don't think it's important, then why not let them have what they want? They get to be married, you get to stop having to hear about it, and nothing is rammed down your throat anymore. Sounds like a good solution for all concerned.

Perhaps you don't intend it, but "shacking up" is pretty dismissive to my American ear. It suggests a couple that's not really in a relationship, but hooking up for sex and recreation. I'd say that's pretty disrespectful to all of those couples who are creating a life together, complete with children, property, and all the other features of married life.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Gays forget or ignore a salient point in the debate: IF HEATHER CAN HAVE TWO MOMMIES, THERE'S NO REASON SHE CANT HAVE FIVE. Same-sex marriage opens the door to every commutation and permutation of human relationship. Whatcha gonna do when your life pardner brings home a 3rd party to share the connubial bed?

Prediction: SCOTUS WILL TOSS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TO THE CURB BECAUSE IT OPENS THE DOOR TO ALL THE OTHER BULLSHIT PEOPLE DREAM UP.

Remember, until 1925 it was legal to marry a child of ten.

 

[matriarch]

Normally I stay out of these debates, but this one just demanded a response.

First off, if the only thing that bothers you about the process is the whining that goes along with it and you don't really care one way or the other, why wouldn't you just say it's OK for same-sex marriages just to quiet the debate and get the "drag queens" and "harpies" to stop their "shrieking" and stop bothering you?

The gay community is asking only for rights given to all heterosexual members of society (or the "majority"). In the US (of which this debate is specifically about) there are many rights that legally are written for people involved in marriage -- not civil unions -- thus creating a large grey area. Not the least of which are rights concerning health insurance coverage and even life-and-death decisions in a hospital. Yes, with a civil union it is possible to legally cover these things, but not without much more effort, time and often significant legal costs to leap through the hoops created by the grey area differentiating marriage and civil union.

In the end, the debate is about semantics in contract law, the right to use the word marriage instead of civil union. Yes, there are emotional parts to the argument, but legally it boils down to the semantics to help close problematic legal loopholes.

So, to them it is an important issue ... a very important issue that in some cases could literally boil down to a life and death difference -- and to discuss it or treat it like anything other than an important issue is another demeaning shot of disrespect aimed at a minority group.

Thank you for that, Nero.

Min and I were 'married' under the UK civil partnership for same sex couples bill. It does afford us all the same rights as heterosexual couples, literally. That was the point of the bill. Healthcare, pension, everything. We would even have to go through a divorce procedure should the day ever rise when we wanted to part. That's why we live here and not there. Until the US affords same sex couples the same rights as hets, then the UK/Europe is where we will stay.

Gays pay taxes, raise their children, fight for their country, nurse their fellow citizens, teach and educate their country's future - children, ........we do nothing different to everyone else, except dare to fall in love with, and want to spend our lives with, someone of the same sex.

So yes, it IS a hugely important issue. It's about equality and fairness to all citizens.