At least Prop 8 passed..

decides2dream

ReleaseMe... wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

WHY would such a topic EVER be voted on in a country that is about religious freedom? religion and goverment....seperate. it really is a simple concept. and religious ideals should never 'come up' to a vote.

again, not my fault

who's talking fault?
you asked a ridiculous hypothetical question.


prop 8 is NOT about religion, it's about civil rights....if there are those who CHOOSe to make it about their personally held religious beliefs, it IS then 'their fault.' that's the difference. apparently there are many who simply do not *get* the concept of seperation of church and state. that's a shame for us all...but that's also when the courts need to step in and make it an issue. if the majority cannot correctly vote on merits, on the rights of the individual, it is up to the courts to uphold the constitution, which also includes the bill of rights.....and yes, the civil liberties of ALL citizens. the fact that prop 8 EVEN GOT to be votd on...is ludicrous.

polaris

i think someone asked how the question was worded ... i was suprised to believe that california - a heavily democratic state would vote for this bill ...

scw156

What I don't understand is why people in CA are holding huge protests that are getting out of hand (arrests etc)

Prop 8 passed because the PEOPLE voted it that way, if you wanted NO on prop 8 you should have gotten more people to vote for your side.

I can see people being upset if the State just passed it, but the people have spoken, majority rule, sorry stop complaining about it.

fugawzi

ReleaseMe... wrote:

some people still have their heads on straight thank goodness

Yea I know. Can't have gays getting married. That would affect everyone in a negative way. Thank Goodness...

PFFFFFFFF!

mammasan

scw156 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people in CA are holding huge protests that are getting out of hand (arrests etc)

Prop 8 passed because the PEOPLE voted it that way, if you wanted NO on prop 8 you should have gotten more people to vote for your side.

I can see people being upset if the State just passed it, but the people have spoken, majority rule, sorry stop complaining about it.

So if the majority of people in your state voted to prohibit interracial couples from getting married it should just be accepted because of majority rule.

Kel Varnsen

scw156 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people in CA are holding huge protests that are getting out of hand (arrests etc)

Prop 8 passed because the PEOPLE voted it that way, if you wanted NO on prop 8 you should have gotten more people to vote for your side.

I can see people being upset if the State just passed it, but the people have spoken, majority rule, sorry stop complaining about it.

But isn't it kind of unfair for a majority to pass rules on things that hurt a minority but have zero effect on them (isn't that the whole idea of equal rights?). I mean it would be like the majority passing a law that said gay people had to pay triple income tax.

I just can't believe that so many millions were spent to outlaw something that would have no effect at all on the anti gay marraige people. They must have it pretty good if there aren't more important things to spend their money on.

decides2dream

scw156 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people in CA are holding huge protests that are getting out of hand (arrests etc)

Prop 8 passed because the PEOPLE voted it that way, if you wanted NO on prop 8 you should have gotten more people to vote for your side.

I can see people being upset if the State just passed it, but the people have spoken, majority rule, sorry stop complaining about it.

seriously, 'majority rule' is NOT what it's all about. it's been mentioned more than a few times now. if 'majority rule' was IT.....woemn still would not have the right to vote, blacks would not have the right to vote, etc. this prop 8 goes against EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL. period. it's not a popularity contest, it's law that is meant to be based on our principles....not just what some people 'want' based on their own personal morality. what if today the majority of some state decided they no longer wanted to allow italians marry? what's the differenc there? it is discrimination based on extraneous factors....ethnicity, sexual orientation, skin color, gender, etc.....it's ALL about EQUAL rights for ALL CITIZENs.

scw156

mammasan wrote:

So if the majority of people in your state voted to prohibit interracial couples from getting married it should just be accepted because of majority rule.

Yes. Thats the point of voting for something.

Thats the system we have, voice your opinion, the side with more votes wins...


Sorry, just saying

decides2dream

scw156 wrote:

Yes. Thats the point of voting for something.

Thats the system we have, voice your opinion, the side with more votes wins...


Sorry, just saying

actually, no, that's not how the system was designed to work.

this prop 8 has ALREADY been overturned once b/c it was decided by the courts to be discriminatory. this is why we have a court system to make certain 'majority rules' isn't the only deciding factor...b/c if that were the case, equal rights would not exist.

scw156

decides2dream wrote:

actually, no, that's not how the system was designed to work.

this prop 8 has ALREADY been overturned once b/c it was decided by the courts to be discriminatory. this is why we have a court system to make certain 'majority rules' isn't the only deciding factor...b/c if that were the case, equal rights would not exist.

Yet here we sit, with Prop 8 passed...

digster

A question for the supporters of Prop 8 in the thread,

Do you support a federal amendment or any such legislation banning gay marriage? Because the thing is, if gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, it must be legal everywhere according to the Constitution. It is not necessarily performed everywhere, but a marriage performed in a state must be honored elsewhere.

digster

scw156 wrote:

Yet here we sit, with Prop 8 passed...

Yeah, the majority voted for Jim Crow, also.

Kel Varnsen

I am curious is the government of California automatically required to accept this proposition as law? I live in Canada, and all of my US election coverage was from Boston. They kept mentioning a bunch of propositions that were on the ballot in Massachusetts, and they said that even if they passed the state legislature is not legally required to accept them. Would it be the same in California?

decides2dream

scw156 wrote:

Yet here we sit, with Prop 8 passed...

for now.

digster wrote:

digster A question for the supporters of Prop 8 in the thread,

Do you support a federal amendment or any such legislation banning gay marriage? Because the thing is, if gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, it must be legal everywhere according to the Constitution. It is not necessarily performed everywhere, but a marriage performed in a state must be honored elsewhere.

ooooo i love it when someone more educated on a topic speaks up. good point!




btw - it TRULY AMAZES me when there are some who view taking away the rights of others as a VICTORY. a victory of what and for whom? sure, it's all fun and games until someone decides they want to infringe on YOUR individual rights. WE ALL LOSE when such things occur.....some may simply choose to be blind to seeing that.

scw156

digster wrote:

Yeah, the majority voted for Jim Crow, also.

Majority (in his second term) voted George Bush too... my point isn't for or against Prop 8... it's, you lost, stop being butthurt about it whether it is Prop 8, pres. elections, protesting/demostrating is one thing but running onto police cars, getting arrested just makes your side look like even bigger fools.

digster

scw156 wrote:

Majority (in his second term) voted George Bush too... my point isn't for or against Prop 8... it's, you lost, stop being butthurt about it whether it is Prop 8, pres. elections, protesting/demostrating is one thing but running onto police cars, getting arrested just makes your side look like even bigger fools.

I don't get your point. You're saying Prop 8 may be wrong, but the opposing side shouldn't be angered/frustrated/attempt to change that. If no one gets frustrated about it, then the wrong law stays on the books indefinitely. And it sounded to me like you backed up your point a little, to 'protesting' being okay. You just told mammsan that a ban on interracial couples should be acceptable if the majority votes in its' favor.

mammasan

scw156 wrote:

Majority (in his second term) voted George Bush too... my point isn't for or against Prop 8... it's, you lost, stop being butthurt about it whether it is Prop 8, pres. elections, protesting/demostrating is one thing but running onto police cars, getting arrested just makes your side look like even bigger fools.

Voting for a politician is not violating someone's civil rights. Preventing them from participating in the same rights heterosexuals enjoy is. That is why majority rules are not the end all in all cases.

JaneNY

That this passed is a reactionary step. I am confident that it won't last.

decides2dream

scw156 wrote:

Majority (in his second term) voted George Bush too... my point isn't for or against Prop 8... it's, you lost, stop being butthurt about it whether it is Prop 8, pres. elections, protesting/demostrating is one thing but running onto police cars, getting arrested just makes your side look like even bigger fools.

who's hurt? it's called anger. and rightly so. change does not occur unless people work for it. civil disobedience is not foolish. it is a tool like any other. we ALL LOSE when liberties are taken away soley on the basis of discrimination. and comparing it to a presidential election is apples and oranges.....since such elections are determined by the electorate, not the popular vote.

mammasan

digster wrote:

I don't get your point. You're saying Prop 8 may be wrong, but the opposing side shouldn't be angered/frustrated/attempt to change that. If no one gets frustrated about it, then the wrong law stays on the books indefinitely. And it sounded to me like you backed up your point a little, to 'protesting' being okay. You just told mammsan that a ban on interracial couples should be acceptable if the majority votes in its' favor.

It's pretty scary how misinformed some people are.