Proposition 8 in California must pass!

[EnemyPartyII]

EPII--

According to the excepts that Texas Lynn posted, VICA came out against the proposition and in favor of full marriage rights. They say California's business will lose money if the proposition passes. They are saying that, for example, keeping separate records for marriages and domestic partnerships with different levels of eligibility for benefits wastes a company's time and money.

Thanks for the clarification... sorry, I lose track of all the anti, anti-anti, and anti-anti-anti groups, propositions and movements out there.

Imagine if all this effort were put into something worthwhile, like, stopping malaria, rather than stopping consentual adults doing what they want to with their own lives?

 

[Dogbean]

I have a question......

How is this vote any different than the votes in the past?
Twice, in the past, the people of CA voted clearly against gay marriage. But the supreme court of CA, defying the will of the people, made it legal anyway. The will of the people was trumped by judicial tyranny.

How is this vote any different? What's to prevent the courts from striking this one down?

 

[Texas Lynn]

I have a question......

How is this vote any different than the votes in the past?
Twice, in the past, the people of CA voted clearly against gay marriage. But the supreme court of CA, defying the will of the people, made it legal anyway. The will of the people was trumped by judicial tyranny.

How is this vote any different? What's to prevent the courts from striking this one down?

I believe in legal terms that's what's called "grounds" or as in the case you postulate, "no grounds".

 

[BigBadWlf]

I have a question......

How is this vote any different than the votes in the past?
Twice, in the past, the people of CA voted clearly against gay marriage. But the supreme court of CA, defying the will of the people, made it legal anyway. The will of the people was trumped by judicial tyranny.

How is this vote any different? What's to prevent the courts from striking this one down?

Yeah just like those nasty justices on the Supreme Court ignored the will of the people and ruled that segregated schools violated the 14th amendment to the constitution. All those poor poor people they just didn’t want their children to have to sit next to colored children in schools. Was that so bad?

Its also like when those darn Supreme Court justices ruled against the will of the good people of Virginia and said that they couldn’t deny interracial couples the right to be married. Shameful of them. The people of Virginia were just following the word of God.

You might note the current proposition is different in that it is calling for changes in the state constitution. Specifically it wishes to alter the constitution to allow discrimination against some minorities.

The justices you are flaming ruled that the denial of equal rights goes against the state constitutions clause that everyone (even minorities) have equal protection under the law.

So the goal of proposition 8 is to weaken the state constitution opening the door for discrimination

The issue being voted on is different.
If you are upset about people having to vote on the exact same issue you might look to Arizona. Two years ago the good people of Arizona rejected an anti-gay initiative. Yet this year various hate groups pushed to have the same legislation put to the ballot again. Their hope is that those voting for McCain will overturn the previous vote and allow discrimination

 

[Brennin]

Yeah just like those nasty justices on the Supreme Court ignored the will of the people and ruled that segregated schools violated the 14th amendment to the constitution. All those poor poor people they just didn’t want their children to have to sit next to colored children in schools. Was that so bad?

Its also like when those darn Supreme Court justices ruled against the will of the good people of Virginia and said that they couldn’t deny interracial couples the right to be married. Shameful of them. The people of Virginia were just following the word of God.

You might note the current proposition is different in that it is calling for changes in the state constitution. Specifically it wishes to alter the constitution to allow discrimination against some minorities.

The justices you are flaming ruled that the denial of equal rights goes against the state constitutions clause that everyone (even minorities) have equal protection under the law.

So the goal of proposition 8 is to weaken the state constitution opening the door for discrimination

The issue being voted on is different.
If you are upset about people having to vote on the exact same issue you might look to Arizona. Two years ago the good people of Arizona rejected an anti-gay initiative. Yet this year various hate groups pushed to have the same legislation put to the ballot again. Their hope is that those voting for McCain will overturn the previous vote and allow discrimination

The proposition in Arizona lost because gay "marriage" advocates lied to seniors. They claimed that those seniors who filed separately for financial reasons would lose their benefits and they never once mentioned gay "marriage" or what they were really about. Now, AZ will not only have a referendum on gay "marriage" but also on the deceit of gay "marriage" advocates.

 

[BigBadWlf]

The proposition in Arizona lost because gay "marriage" advocates lied to seniors. They claimed that those seniors who filed separately for financial reasons would lose their benefits and they never once mentioned gay "marriage" or what they were really about. Now, AZ will not only have a referendum on gay "marriage" but also on the deceit of gay "marriage" advocates.

Can you actually support this claim?

 

[Brennin]

Can you actually support this claim?

Yes.

New Tactic In Fighting Marriage Initiatives

 

[OllieFranz]

Yes.

New Tactic In Fighting Marriage Initiatives

OK, so then as I understand it, the facts are these:

• States that have lesser "Domestic Partnership" laws have usually worded them so that they do not appear to be the "Gay Ghetto" they are intended to be. So straight couples can also apply for "Domestic Partnership" status.
• "Domestic Partnership" can often be more appealing than marriage to senior couples that get together after the deaths of their previous spouses because they obtain State benefits of partnership with their new partner without losing any Federal (eg Social Security) benefits based on their previous marriage.
• "Pro-Marriage" initiatives often include clauses that prohibit the state from recognizing other "marriage-like" institutions, such as "Domestic Partnership," and dissolving any such unions which have already been registered. These Initiatives would therefore affect those seniors who have opted for "Domestic Partnerships."

So where is the deception involved in the "tactic" of publishing these facts? It would seem to me that the deception is in trying to hide these facts from the very people who would be affected.

I remember when Utah was considering an initiative like this. The leading proponent for the Initiative was actually proud he was going to financially ruin "Grandma" just so that no gays could sneak into the church hiding under her skirts and get married.

 

[Dogbean]

I have a question......

How is this vote any different than the votes in the past?
Twice, in the past, the people of CA voted clearly against gay marriage. But the supreme court of CA, defying the will of the people, made it legal anyway. The will of the people was trumped by judicial tyranny.

How is this vote any different? What's to prevent the courts from striking this one down?

Yeah just like those nasty justices on the Supreme Court ignored the will of the people and ruled that segregated schools violated the 14th amendment to the constitution. All those poor poor people they just didn’t want their children to have to sit next to colored children in schools. Was that so bad?

Its also like when those darn Supreme Court justices ruled against the will of the good people of Virginia and said that they couldn’t deny interracial couples the right to be married. Shameful of them. The people of Virginia were just following the word of God.

You might note the current proposition is different in that it is calling for changes in the state constitution. Specifically it wishes to alter the constitution to allow discrimination against some minorities.

The justices you are flaming ruled that the denial of equal rights goes against the state constitutions clause that everyone (even minorities) have equal protection under the law.

So the goal of proposition 8 is to weaken the state constitution opening the door for discrimination

The issue being voted on is different.
If you are upset about people having to vote on the exact same issue you might look to Arizona. Two years ago the good people of Arizona rejected an anti-gay initiative. Yet this year various hate groups pushed to have the same legislation put to the ballot again. Their hope is that those voting for McCain will overturn the previous vote and allow discrimination

In all that blathering drivel, you still have not answered my simple question. How is the blue part different from the red part?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I have a question......

How is this vote any different than the votes in the past?
Twice, in the past, the people of CA voted clearly against gay marriage. But the supreme court of CA, defying the will of the people, made it legal anyway. The will of the people was trumped by judicial tyranny.

How is this vote any different? What's to prevent the courts from striking this one down?

In all that blathering drivel, you still have not answered my simple question. How is the blue part different from the red part?

In the past, the California voters passed statutes, not Constitutional amendments. Statutes that violate the State Constitution are unconstitutional and void, as the State Supreme Court declared.

This vote is to make discrimination in marriage part of the State Constitution. The State Supreme Court cannot declare an amendment to the State Constitution inconsistent with the State Constitution. A constitutional amendment is part of the Constitution.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

In all that blathering drivel, you still have not answered my simple question. How is the blue part different from the red part?

Blathering drivel? Name calling and ad hominem attacks do little to further the Christian cause.

 

[Dogbean]

Blathering drivel? Name calling and ad hominem attacks do little to further the Christian cause.

I called no names. I'm the one being called a racist.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I called no names. I'm the one being called a racist.

Turn the other cheek. 70 times 7, remember?

Anyway, he didn't call you a racist, he pointed out that you are using the same logically false arguments AS racists... hes attempting to show you the flaw in your reasoning, he isn't calling you racist. Indeed, it is that fact that you aren't a racist that he hopes will show you where your argument breaks down.

 

[Dogbean]

Turn the other cheek. 70 times 7, remember?

Anyway, he didn't call you a racist, he pointed out that you are using the same logically false arguments AS racists... hes attempting to show you the flaw in your reasoning, he isn't calling you racist. Indeed, it is that fact that you aren't a racist that he hopes will show you where your argument breaks down.

And we have showed him over and over again that you can't compare the two because while the arguing technique is similar, the topics are so vastly different that it means nothing. It's even been shown to him on a DEBATING WEBSITE that BBW's tactic is unfounded.

But he continues using it, because he has nothing else to stand on. He's sinking in the sand.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And we have showed him over and over again that you can't compare the two because while the arguing technique is similar, the topics are so vastly different that it means nothing. It's even been shown to him on a DEBATING WEBSITE that BBW's tactic is unfounded.

But he continues using it, because he has nothing else to stand on. He's sinking in the sand.

while that is your opinion, thats fine. He still didn't call you a racist, and the fact you think he did, suggests to me at least, that you aren't really trying to understand his point, other wise you wouldn't need me to explain that there was no accusation of racism in what he said.

Personally, I don't see that the two topics are that different at all... both refer to a victimised, vilified minority trying to achieve equal rights. Sounds comparable to me.

 

[Brennin]

A ray of hope in my state!

 

[Dogbean]

A ray of hope in my state!

Praise God for that! I wish I could vote on prop 8, but being military I'm not legally connected to California; my home of record is in Maryland, so I have to vote absentee for Maryland.

 

[Brennin]

Praise God for that! I wish I could vote on prop 8, but being military I'm not legally connected to California; my home of record is in Maryland, so I have to vote absentee for Maryland.

I wish it were otherwise, especially since I am surrounded by I don't know how many empty-headed students who will vote against Prop 8 because they have "just enough of learning to misquote."

Incidentally, I like Bob Ehrlich and Mike Steele.

 

[Dogbean]

For those that are interested, here is the status of same sex marriage in Maryland, the state I can vote in. Source is wikipedia.

Same-sex marriage in Maryland is not currently recognized by state law. In 2004, supporters of same-sex marriage filed a lawsuit, Deane & Polyak v. Conaway, to force the state to recognize these unions. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, heard oral arguments on December 4, 2006, and ruled against the plaintiffs on September 18, 2007, leaving the legal ban on same-sex marriage in place.
In recent sessions of the Maryland General Assembly, legislators opposed to same-sex marriage have attempted, without success, to enact an amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. However, in 2008 the General Assembly did pass two bills establishing a limited form of domestic partnership in the state.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So... anyone come up with a convincing reason not to allow civil, secular recognition of homosexual unions yet?

I mean, one that isnt built on blatant double standard?