The OFFICIAL Proposition 8 Thread: READ HERE FIRST (San Francisco: kindergarten, racism)

[t0bx]

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

Ok, I'm going through the California threads and I see this...timely since this major boulevard running through my area has people at some major intersections with "Yes on 8" and "No on 8" banners. Somehow, these two groups are co-existing.

My thought is that I CAN'T formulate an opinion on this one...it's as bad as our 2 pitiful choices for U.S. President (my 2 cents). I'll have to think about this one some more.

Part of me thinks "Yes on 8" because I don't think same-sex marriage needs to be legally condoned. People of the same sex can live together, name each other as heirs or beneficiaries, and on and on...when it gets to state/federal paid survivor benefits, that adoptions became "hey man, that's cool," etc., then it's getting out of hand. Singularly, gays and lesbians can partake in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...as they are already in prominent positions in the professions, enterprises, the arts, government, etc. Therefore, I think Prop 8 is unnecessary.

Part of me thinks "No on 8" because it's what the dogmatic, regimented and "redneckish" Mormon church wants. (In fact, the boulevard on which you see these "Yes on 8" signs has a higher than average Mormon representation in the surrounding area...ahem, temple). And the Catholic church (my faith) also has a "Yes on 8" ("Yes on 4") stance. So, since I don't like to have my church TELL me how to think, I could vote "No on 8" out of defiance, as I don't 100% buy into what the Catholic church, or any church, tells me.

The other ballot measures are "easier" to decide yes/no compared to this one.

I am kind of in your camp of thinking. I want a gay couple to have all the same rights as a married couple if this is truly what they are seeking. Now if they are going to start sueing the state or organizations if they are not fairly represented in schools or books that is where I have a problem. Kind of like the Gavin Newsome scene ("Whether you like it or not") of shoving it down our throats. Not that they will influence kids as I believe being gay is 100% natural but that the "norm" is men and women get married. 97% of marriages will be between a man and woman (roughly about 3% of the population is gay).

[SandyCo]

There is an excellent article in the L.A. Times today, in the Opinion section:

No on Proposition 8 - Los Angeles Times

[ZhugeLiang]

While I fully support gay marriage, this bill is every bit as disgusting as the way gay marriage was legalized in CA in the first place. You simply cannot use the brute force method of judicial activism to create a law that isn't there and expect your opposition not to counter with something even more draconian.

If I still lived in CA, I'm not sure I could vote on this measure one way or the other. I don't buy into the notion that those who favor 8 are bigots, that is completely irrational. You can still be sympathetic to homosexuals being treated as second-class citizens while supporting Prop. 8. When it all comes down to it, I'm more of the opinion that a vote on Prop 8 is a vote for upholding the Rule of Law more than anything else.

If people really want change, the ONLY acceptable place for this to occur is at the ballot box and floor votes from our elected representatives and not from unelected judges abusing their authority by creating laws that no one had the chance to vote on.

On a side note, CA continues to amaze me. On one hand, the state will likely go to Obama on Tuesday while homosexuals are prohibited from marriage. California the incoherent.

[CamaroGuy]

Originally Posted by t0bx

Thanks for the clarification...My parents are the "Greatest" generation so it is important to hold onto some of their ideals and shed others.

There will definately never be another generation like the "Greatest" generation!

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

While I fully support gay marriage, this bill is every bit as disgusting as the way gay marriage was legalized in CA in the first place. You simply cannot use the brute force method of judicial activism to create a law that isn't there and expect your opposition not to counter with something even more draconian.

If I still lived in CA, I'm not sure I could vote on this measure one way or the other. I don't buy into the notion that those who favor 8 are bigots, that is completely irrational. You can still be sympathetic to homosexuals being treated as second-class citizens while supporting Prop. 8. When it all comes down to it, I'm more of the opinion that a vote on Prop 8 is a vote for upholding the Rule of Law more than anything else.

If people really want change, the ONLY acceptable place for this to occur is at the ballot box and floor votes from our elected representatives and not from unelected judges abusing their authority by creating laws that no one had the chance to vote on.

On a side note, CA continues to amaze me. On one hand, the state will likely go to Obama on Tuesday while homosexuals are prohibited from marriage. California the incoherent.

Everyone knows from Government 101 that there are 3 branches of gov't: Executive, Judicial & Legislative. It never ceases to amaze me that whenever judges exercise their power to determine the legality of the Law, that they are regarded by conservatives as "judicial activists" when said conservatives disagree with the ruling. The Judicial branch is there to make sure that the Executive and Legislative don't get too crazy and annihilate the minority voice. That is the genius of the Constitution. The Republican dominated CA Supreme Court had EVERY right to issue its opinion on the issue of civil marriage. I don't buy your argument that it had NO right to do so. This Prop 8 to me smacks of "rule by mob force", best left to educated judges who know the law.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by wehotex

Everyone knows from Government 101 that there are 3 branches of gov't: Executive, Judicial & Legislative. It never ceases to amaze me that whenever judges exercise their power to determine the legality of the Law, that they are regarded by conservatives as "judicial activists" when said conservatives disagree with the ruling. The Judicial branch is there to make sure that the Executive and Legislative don't get too crazy and annihilate the minority voice. That is the genius of the Constitution. The Republican dominated CA Supreme Court had EVERY right to issue its opinion on the issue of civil marriage. I don't buy your argument that it had NO right to do so. This Prop 8 to me smacks of "rule by mob force", best left to educated judges who know the law.

Yes, there are three separate branches of government. I seem to have proven my knowledge of this far better in my post. Judges are on the bench to interpret the law, not to create it. Oh by the way, I think the appeal to authority argument went out of style over 2,000 years ago.

[krudmonk]

The laws already existed for a long time. The judges merely read those laws and applied them. No "liberals" sneaked in and changed anything. Stop the conspiracy theories.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

Yes, there are three separate branches of government. I seem to have proven my knowledge of this far better in my post. Judges are on the bench to interpret the law, not to create it. Oh by the way, I think the appeal to authority argument went out of style over 2,000 years ago.

They didn't create a law. They simply found that in 2000, by voting to define marriage as one man and one woman, the people of California voted in favor of creating a law that was deemed unconstitutional. By overturning that law that was created, the judges were not creating their own law. They were getting rid of an unconstitutional law. Geez...

[robertpolyglot]

Driving home tonight, it was impossible NOT to notice the banner-waving people at a couple of major intersections. Both sides, Yes and No, were there. So was the POLICE.

I saw a bunch of little kids holding up signs.

My first thought was that this is not cool, since kids shouldn't be made to grow up this fast. My second thought was how, in the late 90s, parents had to prematurely explain what oral sex was to their kids, thanks to the seminal Clinton-Lewinsky exchange.

SOS, different decade.

[bradly]

Even teenagers in California are saying NO to discrimination, as i was driving last week in LA i saw huge rallies of for and against, people dont realize what this will do to some californians, if this was up in New Mexico it would fail, becuase we dont discriminate people especially under the law.

NO ON 8, Americans deserve freedoms, not to be striped of them.