The OFFICIAL Proposition 8 Thread: READ HERE FIRST (donating, recruit)

[LovelyinLa]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

These are civil rights issues, genius. I assume you're among the many who think it's a term applied specifically to black people in the '60s. Look up the words sometime.

This is not a civil rights issue. If it were a civil rights issue it would be saying that only a particular man (i.e. Black, White, etc.) could be married. As it stands, ALL men are allowed to get married. No, this is about redefining marriage. So as for the genius remark, right back at you.

[fierce_flawless]

Originally Posted by LovelyinLa

This is not a civil rights issue. If it were a civil rights issue it would be saying that only a particular man (i.e. Black, White, etc.) could be married. As it stands, ALL men are allowed to get married. No, this is about redefining marriage. So as for the genius remark, right back at you.

Marriage has been "redefined" over time repeatedly. If it hadn't been redefined, a wife would be her husband's legal property, and a man could have several wives.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by LovelyinLa

Since I just came from church I will respond to you with all the respect that you've refused to show for me and my opinions. You don't think your disrespect of Religion is the reason for the rift? You don't think the constant name calling has been helpful do you? Fortunately, I refuse to stoop to your level and will continue to state my beliefs without insulting you and giving respect to you and your Unicorn religious beliefs. If you don't believe in Religion and don't respect it, why continue to fight for the use of the word marriage? Shouldn't even matter to you, you'd only care about your rights, right. I just think that it's really hurtful that God has said that homosexuality is a sin and you think that by using the word marriage that it will somehow change this. That's what this is about, and since I can understand how that must feel I will leave it at that.

I've never said nor implied that Gay people are 2nd class citizens, insulted them or insinuated this behavior was wrong or immoral ( again, you're speaking from emotions and YOU have assigned these things to me). It doesn't bring me a bit of joy that there are so many people hurt by this (again, your emotions speaking, not mine). This is why I've been advocating a compromise. Remember not everyone who voted for this prop is doing so for the same reasons, many people voted for it because they didn't want this in schools, and with the vote being as close as it was, wouldn't have passed without them either. Sadly, yes there are Yes on 8 people who believe that Gay people shouldn't have any rights. However, the majority of us are just trying to defend our beliefs but also want equal protection for all. I don't think that makes us hateful or bigots so we will have to agree to disagree on this.

BTW, the 2/3 majority vote in the Legislature is only one way to amend the California Constitution. The Proprosition process is the other. Considering that it's on a Federal level that most of the opposition to same sex marriage exists, that really should be a last resort. You have to realize that this is the reason for going through the states individually.

Finally, I will be happy when the Gay Community can stand on it's own and make a case for Same Sex marriage without bringing in Racism and Civil Rights. Again, it just makes you look desperate and in my opinion pathetic.

I care about the word marriage because it shouldn't only apply to Christians. The goverment uses it to describe all straight people who have entered into a civil union including atheists and you seem to have no problem with that. Your problem comes when the government considers using it to describe a same sex couple. That doesn't seem fair, does it? Like some other people have mentioned, maybe the government should call all marriages civil unions and give everyone the exact same rights. Would that be a suitable compromise? I think so. That way everyone uses the same name for a union without redefining religion as it is defined in the bible. Then people who get married in church can say they were married but "officially" they have a civil union. Then anyone can say they are "married," gay couples included, but officially all marriages are known as civil unions by the government. Does that sound fair?

In my last post, I didn't bring up the civil rights movement and we wouldn't have to bring it up if you guys didn't want excuses for why gay people deserve the same rights. There are many parallels between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement just as there are many parallels between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. We draw on history and our experiences to give examples of how we believe things affect us and the world. If you choose to get offended by this common practice of drawing on personal experiences to explain our points, then that's your prerogative. In the post you claim you won't "stoop to my level" which I guess is expressing my opinion honestly? Yet you "stoop" to calling me pathetic and desperate because I think that Yes on 8 people are jerks and bigots. I'm just being honest, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just telling you what I think of you.

But hey, it is a bit comforting to know that you aren't happy that gay people now have less rights than you and I have.

[LovelyinLa]

Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee

I've made an argument on constitutional grounds like 4 posts up, how about you argue against those.

The statement was whether or not the Prop had to be approved by Legislature. If you made an argument that says this is the only way to amend the Ca. Constitution I don't have to look it up because you'd be wrong.

[FinkieMcGee]

Originally Posted by LovelyinLa

The statement was whether or not the Prop had to be approved by Legislature. If you made an argument that says this is the only way to amend the Ca. Constitution I don't have to look it up because you'd be wrong.

And just because something was inserted into the constitution doesnt make it automatically constitutional, especially if it causes a contradiction, as this does.

Edit: It's also incredibly frightening that the constitution can be altered like this in the first place, and some of us are hoping some form of legislation is passed to change this.

[CESpeed]

Originally Posted by tangodoodles

It seems as though you will completely disregard whatever I say in favor of your unfounded fears about churches losing their tax exempt status. Good luck with that!

Apparently, you haven't read posts here calling for exactly that. And since the protesters are targeting churches, how unfounded were my concerns, REALLY?

[FinkieMcGee]

Originally Posted by CESpeed

Apparently, you haven't read posts here calling for exactly that. And since the protesters are targeting churches, how unfounded were my concerns, REALLY?

If you're real lucky 51% of the population will ram some legislation through and cause that to happen.

[LovelyinLa]

Originally Posted by fierce_flawless

I'm not understanding where this idea comes from that marriage is a term belonging only to religion.

If the term was "holy matrimony" then maybe I could see it, since that's usually something said in religious marriage ceremonies. But who told you that the word "marriage" belonged only to those of a certain faith?

News flash; those of us not bound by religion have no issue with what "God said" either way so it's not hurtful at all, and we don't associate the word marriage with God. I have no shame about who I love and want to share my life with and I don't need or desire Christian approval, a Christian wedding, or any Christian terminology. I desire a CIVIL marriage license and all the rights and benefits that go along with it. Simple.

You just made my entire case. Why not fight for the expanded rights of Civil Unions instead of bringing Religion into it. Marriage has gone through some reincarnations throughout the centuries but Religious people believe that it is a union ordained by God as stated in the Bible. When the State decided to step in, it was also called a civil union as the State doesn't recognize religious ceremonies. In my opinion this is where it becomes unclear, does the State's involvement mean that it's no longer a religious ceremony? One side says it is (Religions) the other says it isn't (Gay Community). For the Religious community, the State has no right redefine their beliefs. The Gay community believes that since there are rights assigned to Marriage they are entitled to those rights as well. The argument comes in with the word "Marriage". As I said, if this was about rights, and the argument was about expanding the rights of the Gay community. There would be very few people (if any) objecting to it.

Remove the word marriage and there is no fight.

[CESpeed]

Originally Posted by LovelyinLa

You just made my entire case. Why not fight for the expanded rights of Civil Unions instead of bringing Religion into it. Marriage has gone through some reincarnations throughout the centuries but Religious people believe that it is a union ordained by God as stated in the Bible. When the State decided to step in, it was also called a civil union as the State doesn't recognize religious ceremonies. In my opinion this is where it becomes unclear, does the State's involvement mean that it's no longer a religious ceremony? One side says it is (Religions) the other says it isn't (Gay Community). For the Religious community, the State has no right redefine their beliefs. The Gay community believes that since there are rights assigned to Marriage they are entitled to those rights as well. The argument comes in with the word "Marriage". As I said, if this was about rights, and the argument was about expanding the rights of the Gay community. There would be very few people (if any) objecting to it.

Remove the word marriage and there is no fight.

I hate when I can't give reps. Truer words could not be written.

[fierce_flawless]

I'm still waiting for an answer:

Who told you that marriage was a religious term or something that belonged only to the religious??