RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

MistrixMsE -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 12:13:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Now, they can get married and then divorced and lose half their stuff like the rest of us.[8D]


Thats been my argument for it all along. G/L's had a special protection that I could not get.... they were legally prohibited and protected from fucking themselves over royally. Being straight, the government just LET me... nay.. encouraged me... to invest 7 years and potentially force me to forfeit half my stuff... salt in the damn wound!




DaddySatyr -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 12:56:43 AM)

I have said this time and time, again; the real issue here (to me) is that the government has no business being involved in marriage .

We (as a people) stupidly allowed government a little bit of " control and they have been trying to exert "dominion" ever since.

Marriage was a religious ritual, instituted by some judeo-christian "god". People got married because they thought they were going to hell if they had sex without benefit of clergy intercession.

Then, the government saw an idea for a money maker (marriage licenses). They obfuscated the constitution (prohibiting the free exercise of religion) and we welcomed it.

We reap what we sow.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



tazzygirl -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 5:45:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Prop. 8


No meant yes, and yes meant no.

[;)]



No. It didn't. It was a constitutional amendment, Tazzy. Yes meant yes, and no meant no. Google "yes on prop 8," and see where it takes you.

I don't know where you heard it was reversed on the ballot, implying that it might have passed by accident, but you might want to be more careful with that source in the future.


Of course it did.

Vote yes Prop 8.

Voting yes meant eliminating same sex marriage.

Yes meant no, no meant yes.



TheHeretic -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 6:36:53 AM)

Tazzy, the question on the ballot wasn't, "shall gays have the right to marry." The question was whether the CA Constitution would define marriage as a man and a woman. Is there a point you are trying to make, if you are not suggesting that there was some sort of confusion at play in the voting booth?



tazzygirl -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 6:38:54 AM)

ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.

Im not sure why you are finding it objectionable. By voting yes, it is saying no to the right for gays to marry.



TheHeretic -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 6:58:55 AM)

Yes, that's the title given by our Secretary of State. Again, if you aren't trying to suggest that confusion about the meaning of the measure resulted in it passing by accident, what is your point?

Edit for morning "whoops"



Owner59 -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 7:31:42 AM)

I heard there were folks who were confused,during the voting and during the petition drive.


Who payed for that petition drive, BTW?


Extra points for the correct answer.



tazzygirl -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 8:50:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Yes, that's the title given by our Secretary of State. Again, if you aren't trying to suggest that confusion about the meaning of the measure resulted in it passing by accident, what is your point?

Edit for morning "whoops"


Speaking out recently against Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown made an appeal for the importance of protecting the rights of same-sex couples. And then he urged his audience to vote yes on the proposition.

Brown misspoke. He intended to advocate a no vote. But he isn't alone in confusing which side is which. As election day nears, both supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 worry that voters will be confused by a choice that can seem counterintuitive: Voting no on the initiative means voting yes on gay marriage, while voting yes means gay marriage would be disallowed.

"There is confusion on both sides over yes meaning no and no meaning yes," said West Hollywood City Councilman John Duran, who is helping campaign for No on 8. He added, jokingly, that he has heard supporters of the proposition say, "I'm opposed to gay marriage, so I'm voting no, and I'm like, 'Yes, vote no.' "

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/31/local/me-yesno31

You tell me.



Owner59 -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 10:05:16 AM)

No question folks were confused and that it had an impact.

The question is...........was it intentional?

I think that`s what he is feeling defensive about.Which makes sense and would be appropriate.[:D]



tazzygirl -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 10:08:45 AM)

I never claimed it was intentional or not. I do know the wording was questioned in courts. People were confused, nor can I blame them for being so. The courts failed to see beyond their own education to the educational level of the citizens. In that aspect, the courts failed the people.

I see no need for anyone to get upset. Its just a fact, like so many others. No meant yes, yes meant no... and people admitted to being confused.



GrandPoobah -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 3:08:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

It simply said that since gays had the right to marry (before the passage of Prop 8), the referendum process can't be used to deny that right. In other words, for example, if women have the right to vote, you can't create a petition to take that right away from them, since the Constitution specifically says you can't discriminate.


Still good news since in Cali the business of DE-legislating by referenda is out of control from what I here. Any idea if this will effect other freedoms and statutes effected by the 'petitioner lawmakers' or whatever you want to call them?




This ruling is pretty specific. However, unless the Supreme Court takes it...which is not guaranteed...it will stand and the concept could well be applied to other cases. For the moment, it is effective only in the 9th Circuit area, and the most likely "next candidate" would be Washington State. They are about to approve full marriage...sometime this week...and, predictably, opponents are already threatening a referendum. If that happens, the cases would be almost identical. The one "hitch" would be that Washington's law likely won't go into effect, meaning that gays never "really had the right" to begin with. Of course, all of this will play out soon enough.



TheHeretic -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 6:57:01 PM)

Tazzy, I would not presume for a moment to do a spot of googling, and then tell you about conditions on the ground in one of your local elections.

Good for you. You found some dumbasses who got quoted in a story about a gaffe. You pulled up the official title, which was pretty clear, ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, and you then want to argue that people didn't know what a "yes," vote meant.

Now the obvious solution, if you want to argue that we must account for the dumbest of the dumb at the polling place, would be some sort of literacy or IQ test to establish eligibility. Maybe "monitors," to go into the booth with them, and make sure they vote right? I'm sure there are some who would happily endorse that, if it suited their goals on a given day, but I won't.

Here's a problem too, with the "confusion" excuse. Stupidity knows no party, and if some people
thought, "yes" on 8 was a vote for gay marriage, then there must have been dumbasses who thought "no," was the way to express their will (as cited in the quote from a West Hollywood Councilman with a chance to be interviewed by the LA Times). Does anyone wish to make a case that dumbass socially liberal voters significantly outnumber dumbass social conservatives? Maybe that they were out in higher numbers, because President Obama has a bigger base of dumbasses? (Actually, I can think of quite a few people who might like to run with that, but none of them are joining this conversation, and I'll resist the temptation [;)] )

Gay marriage doesn't divide easily along our standard partisan lines, no matter how hard some try to paint them in. That's probably why President Obama went from supporting gay marriage (then at a more local level) to "evolving" on it. Plenty of people who voted for McCain voted against this thing (probably including some divorce lawyers), and plenty of Obama supporters voted to strip homosexuals of equal protection under the law.

Whether it is this case, or maybe a gay couple in Texas, trying to get a divorce on their out-of-state marriage certificate, this issue is going to the Supreme Court. I'm hoping they'll get it right, but it doesn't end in court. The discrimination ends in our communities, and in the hearts of neighbors, and that requires truths some will find inconvenient.



tazzygirl -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 7:10:14 PM)

quote:

Good for you. You found some dumbasses who got quoted in a story about a gaffe. You pulled up the official title, which was pretty clear, ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, and you then want to argue that people didn't know what a "yes," vote meant.


I didnt say they didnt know.

You have a bad habit lately of putting words into people's mouths.

Im sure if you google, you will find more. What I AM saying is that people were confused, they were getting conflicting information, and no one knows for sure how people really felt.

quote:

Here's a problem too, with the "confusion" excuse. Stupidity knows no party, and if some people
thought, "yes" on 8 was a vote for gay marriage, then there must have been dumbasses who thought "no," was the way to express their will (as cited in the quote from a West Hollywood Councilman with a chance to be interviewed by the LA Times).


You will have to show me where I suggested anything different, or where I said that those who were against gay marriages were anymore less confused than those who were for it.

Why are you so upset over this?
Did you write the bill?
Do you have a personal stake in all this?
Is gay marriage something you find morally reprehensible?
Do you honestly believe everyone in a state will understand that a no vote on Prop 8 meant gays could still marry?

Personally, it was badly worded, and that was by design.



TheHeretic -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 7:48:34 PM)

Prop 8 didn't magically spring into being from a vacuum, Tazzy. Gays were getting married in California. That was in the LA Times, too, along with the San Francisco paper, and the nightly news in Sacramento, and all the way up in Weed, or out in Baker.

Perhaps you were just going for a cutesy one-liner when you chimed in on the subject, as happened on another thread that turned into a great teachable moment, recently, but what you accomplished was just snide innuendo, with implications you hadn't thought through.



tazzygirl -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 8:01:39 PM)

My comment was quite clear. People were confused. The fact that you felt it was a slap at you is on your head, not mine. If some "dumbasses" are confused on both sides of al issue, how do you really know where people stand on that issue? You dont.



Owner59 -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 9:25:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I never claimed it was intentional or not. I do know the wording was questioned in courts. People were confused, nor can I blame them for being so. The courts failed to see beyond their own education to the educational level of the citizens. In that aspect, the courts failed the people.

I see no need for anyone to get upset. Its just a fact, like so many others. No meant yes, yes meant no... and people admitted to being confused.

Yes I know.

But he`s reactions/upset give away that HE thinks so.

You beat him with sheer intellect,a logical argument and the facts.

Muah![:D]

"Prop 8 didn't magically spring into being from a vacuum"

I heard it was financed by and wouldn`t have happened if not for the LDSs.

If true,that would be pretty much springing from a vacuum.



TheHeretic -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 9:30:56 PM)

Why do you need so badly to believe that confusion was the cause of Prop. 8 sailing to an easy victory, Tazzy?

I suppose I could just tell you what put it over the top, but what fun would that be?




TheHeretic -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 9:37:05 PM)

I turned off the "hide," to see if you had provided a proper response to, Hillwilliam, Owner59, and I see that you haven't.

Of course, we already know why it's so important to you that there be a convenient excuse, don't we?

Back into the corner with you, but don't worry. I'll keep an eye out for the next opportunity you create to educate and persuade. [;)]



Owner59 -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/8/2012 10:35:23 PM)

I responded.

You just didn`t like the answer.

Please, put me back on hide.

It burdens me to think I might be hurting your feelings.

But I`ll repeat it yet again......I haven`t heard a democrat official saying/doing anything bigoted...towards LDSs or snake handlers,etc.

And AGAIN I`ll repeat the there are hundred of examples of such crap coming from GOP officials and leaders.

We can keep going around like this.I don`t mind repeating that your party is full of bigots.




tazzygirl -> RE: CA Prop 8 ruled as unconstitutional! (2/9/2012 1:04:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Why do you need so badly to believe that confusion was the cause of Prop. 8 sailing to an easy victory, Tazzy?

I suppose I could just tell you what put it over the top, but what fun would that be?




I never once mentioned anything about a victory or a defeat. I said people were confused. Why is it you need to take that as a slap?

I am staying, emphatically, that if people are confused, then are they truly voting for what they believe?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.699707E-02