Prop 8 tries to disolve marriges...

Here is the story. I hope everyone who supported that proposition or donated money gets eye cancer.

I'm not gay, but it also what anyone else does with their lives doesn't affect me one bit, this is what 8 years of religious government will do to our society. Its sad....

I'm not surprised Kenneth Starr's filing the Brief. This is the man who wasted taxpayer money over some blowjobs.

What we need right now is another fat Lothario to get his rocks off and deny it so Starr can forget all about this gay marriage thing and get back to something he cares about

This seems a pretty nasty, though inevitable, next step for the supporters to take in order to maintain the 'purity' of the institution.
I have long thought that the state should get out of the 'marriage' biz and leave that particular bit of ceremony to the religious institutions. The state could regulate the contractual arrangement between people. The religious institutions could marry them. There are several who would be happy to marry gay folk. Of course this solution is impractical because the state is actively involved at this point and the machinery of the state has been harnessed by the people who supported this proposition.

Ironical.
I would not ascribe uniformity of motive to all who supported this. The no on 8 folks ran a pretty poor campaign and the yes on eight people ran an effective one. There are many who voted for this in a certain degree of ignorance.

Everyone's favorite attorney, Ken Starr of Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton nee Whitewater investigative fame is heavily involved in this. He has been at Pepperdine a few years and has come out occasionaly to fight for his causes, most of which (I believe) I have opposed.

Personally, I don't really care who marries who as long as the everyone is capable of, and consents to, the arrangement. I do care deeply that the contractual end of the arrangement is fair to all parties involved and to any resulting offspring.

Is this last statement at all true? I would have thought the court's first obligations would be to the constitution and legal precedent, even if the result was unpopular.

You, sir, win the Internet.

-TM

OH MY.

You mean like those pesky civil rights decisions in the 60s? Giving people with nonwhite skin rights was widely unpopular with the "people" of that time. Come back when you liberal hippies have an athiest majority and then we will talk.(read: Sarcasm)

My offer of a free kick in the business to any Prop 8 supporter still stands.

Turns out, you'd be right.

Alright. Here goes
I support prop 8, however. I did not vote on it.
I personally believe that Marriage is a religious institution, and shouldn't even be a state issue, however.
Proposition 8 is not about rights, its about the word -marriage- because, from what I've read, in california same sex unions get the same state-wide benefits as traditional 'marriages'. Any legal rights they dont have would be nulled anways due to the fact that they are still not recognized by federal law.
If gays want to be in a relationship, in my opinion, more power to them. One of my best friends is gay. I've got nothing against homosexuals, but I do believe that 1)marriage is a religious ceremony- 2)homosexuality is usually against the beliefs of that religion- and 3)forcing a religion to accept something that is, well, against their beliefs is wrong.
In my honest opinion. If gay activists/supporters want to start somewhere, they should start in the states that offer same-sex unions NO rights. Unlike california, whom offers mostly the same rights to civil unions as marriages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage#Civil_unions_and_partnerships
Because, seriously, keeping marriage from gays is a matter of religion. Keeping rights from them is just plain wrong

No one is trying to do that.

We've already had the separate but equal debate in this country.

check out California Family Code, Section 400.

why are you arguing that only the people you agree with own the word "marriage" when the law states, very clearly, that there is no specific belief system tied to that word? hell, you don't even need to have a religious ceremony, you can be married by a retired atheist judge if you want to.

this isn't even an argument, it's a group of assholes trying to change the law to co-opt the meaning of something through brute force.

then on top of that, you have the balls to say "well why don't you just call it something different after we steal the word, so i don't have to be offended?"

you, and other Prop 8 supporters, can suck a million dicks. suck them then get legally married to them, i hope.

That's irrelevant if DoMA is unconstitutional, which it very well may be. Allowing gay marriages may give us a chance to find out.

What's "that" religion? There are plenty of religions and churches that welcome their gay brothers and sisters into their congregations, ordain them, and marry them (U-Us, Episcopals, etc.)

Legalizing same sex marriages does not force religions to accept anything. A Catholic or Baptist or UU or Scientologist or Jewish or Jain or Taoist congregation can marry whomever they want. No one has to perform a marriage ceremony on any couple that they don't want to. The only institution that would have gay marriage "forced" upon it would be the state government.

Yr arguing that tradition should dictate the future, which is bullshit. If the traditional definition of marriage included being between "one man and one woman who must be under the age of fourteen", would that make it right? If the traditional definition of marriage included being between "one white man and one white woman and however many non-white women he wanted"? Would changing that definition (as you put it, "forcing" our beliefs on them) be wrong?

What about gay Californians? Yr saying that rather than joining a grassroots community movement, they should try to impose their values on other states?This isn't always about an agenda. It's about people wanting their lives and loves to be considered as valid and valuable as anyone else's.

You'll have to excuse me for getting a bit charged up about the subject. My sister's engaged to her long time girlfriend, two of my roommates are gay, as are many of my closest friends and colleagues. Not to mention I just saw Milk last night. Which I highly recommend.

I'm still surprised this happened in California.. for some reason I thought that state was hugely liberal with their views.

(not wanting to offend, but that's how I've seen Cali for years, open minded)

You don't understand this at all do you?

California law before it was fucked with by homophobic assholes was not forcing religions to do anything.

They have had the right to deny a "religious" marriage to whom ever they please all along. Fear mongering that stems from hate is the reason proposition 8 came into existence, idiots not understanding the difference between a state recognized marriage and a religious one are why it passed.

This argument that keeps coming up saying "well they can have the rights, but not the word" reeks of discrimination. For people like yourself who are unable to understand why try thinking a little bit harder before spewing.

Word. I'm wondering when all these people who are so high and righteous about the religious sanctity of the word 'marriage' are going to begin their campaigns to outlaw divorce and preventing atheists and agnostics from uniting "in the eyes of god."

If you are still offering free kicks, can I offer something too, like, I don't know light them on fire and put it out with a bag of hammers?

I think it is ridiculous to pick and choose what people can "have the word" and which cannot.
Why does no one raise a fit about inmates on death row having rights to be married but get their panties in a knot over gays? 1000 to 1 that inmate did much more harm than being gay ever would.

Unfortunately, if Gay marriage is legalized, Churches will be in danger of losing their 'non profit' rights if they refuse to service homosexuals. Perhaps I dont understand. Perhaps I dont understand why its so important to get 'married' when the californian government basically sees the unions as 'married' in most legal terms anyways. As for the 'religious sanctity' of the word. Its just my belief. Its quite sad that at this point in time, its lost all religious sanctity in the eyes of the public and government, but I still hold that belief. It is also one of the reasons I didnt vote on 8. Anywho. I probably shouldnt have posted because my beliefs on this are very odd and a bit confusing. You all have a nice day. I'm gonna let you get back to your conservative-bashing -waves-

The above statement is completely, totally wrong.

You can believe whatever you want about the word, that is your personal decision and right.

What gives you or anyone else the right to determine what the word means to other people?

For many people their love is sacred and marriage is an expression of that love. Does that make sense to you?
No one is asking religions to change, or forcing anyone to do anything. No one is asking you to change your personal definitions of the word marriage and what it means to you specifically.

How exactly does gay marriage in any way change your life?
The reality is, it doesn't change your life. The only reason you'd continue to argue that it does is homophobia. Think about that carefully.

Does Hindu marriage in anyway change your personal definition of marriage?
How about Islamic marriage?
How about Mormon marriage?
How about a State marriage?
What about when Atheists get married?

Do any of them some how make you personally change your definition of marriage?

alright. The whole 'non profit' rights I heard from a few people.
And I was stepping out of this NOT to play the martyr, but because I know that most my arguments are just based on beliefs. And beliefs dont go well in debates. Like I said. I didnt vote on prop 8 for much the same reason.
As for the hindu/islamic/mormon marriage thing. I believe we more or less follow the same god, just in different names and views. So no it doesnt. As for the state and Athiesm marriages, like I already said. At this point, what religious sanctity marriage had is now nulled. I dont think any beliefs are wrong. We all have a right to believe whatever we want. As for the ice comment. Cold enough ice can, actually burn you. So I dont see why a belief in that would be considered wrong.
HOwever, I'm not upset at anyone here for disagreeing with my logic. I'm just excusing myself and attempting to do it without offending anyone. I didnt vote on 8 because I dont believe in forcing anyone to agree with what you believe. I believe that voting no on prop 8 would mean forcing religions to accept gay marriage. And I believe that voting yes on prop 8 would have meant forcing homosexuals to accept others' religious beliefs.

while i respect your ability to separate what you believe from what should be made into law, your last statement exposes a critical flaw. if Prop 8 had failed, it would not have mandated the religious acceptance of gay marriage, and this is a key point in the debate:

everyone, everywhere must accept that gay people exist and have the exact same rights as them. but no, you do not have to accept them into your personal religious ceremonies.

you have to accept them into the workplace, into the institution of marriage, and into society as a whole, but no, you do not have to practice your religion any differently in private.

no religious organization was threatened with any such thing, because that would have been the exact same thing that gay rights activists are fighting against: a law that tells you that someone else's beliefs have the power to reach into your home or church and take away your personal freedoms.

Voting yes on a school levy is forcing your beliefs on the values of those who believe anything but home schooling will send children to hell.

Voting yes on allowing interracial marriage is forcing your beliefs on the values of those who believe in God-given white supremacy and purity.

Voting yes on farm subsidies is forcing your beliefs on the values of those who believe that the cow is sacred.

Representative democracy means that some people are going to have to accept things that they don't like. What's mindboggling about same sex marriage opponents is that they're against something that doesn't even affect them directly or indirectly. It's not like taxes or criminal justice or saggy pants laws. It affects no one directly but the two people entering into the covenant, and its indirect effects are inconsequential in the scheme of things.

This belief is not based on the law that existed before prop 8. At no time was any religious person or organization forced to "accept" gay marriage. As far as any church was concerned they could choose to not acknowledge a gay marriage as marriage pertains to their religion (the same way a Catholic marriage is not a Jewish marriage, is not a Hindu marriage, etc.)

What the law was saying is that gay couples could in fact be married by the state, and that their marriage would be recognized by the state. You should have realized by now, that the state is not a religious organization.

Where does this belief stem from? Since it clearly isn't based on reality or facts, where did it originate from?