Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't agree with the preference but I believe homosexuals should have the same right as heterosexuals.
I think that all man are created equal regardless of sex race preference and so on.
I believe the only ideology against homosexuals having the rights as heterosexual is the christian doctrine
But the Constitution states the separation of church and state
so a church ideology shouldn't be the influence of a law
this is america. we have the freedoms and choice to marry who we want to and don't
the federal or the state shouldn't take that right away
I don't believe California is the most liberal State. Places like San Francisco and LA are quite liberal, but California has a very very large Conservative population. You're also ignoring that it was only a 51% majority, and the anti-gay movement was supported by the Mormon church.
Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, etc. I'd argue are more liberal than California.
He is also ignoring the fact that it was not 52.24% of the population of California, but only 52.24% of the people that voted. That amounted to just over 7 million people in California voted to decide for all the rest. It and any vote concerning individual rights should not ever be put to vote. Your rights could be next. Why not put up to vote the right to marry someone of an opposite sex if you are going to vote on the rights of gay people. We are people too, like it or not and some of you on this board should be ashamed of yourselves. You use your beliefs and your religion as a judgement stick to measure others by, yet fail to use it against your own selves. Yet have I seen anyone do a darn thing about the ridiculous heterosexual divorce rate that does more harm emotionally, physically and financially to families.
Yeah, if you excluded San Francisco which had very low support levels for the gay marriage ban, the 52% probably would have been higher.
I live in far northern California where there are mostly rural country towns, where farming, ranching, logging and fishing still have a hold, yet here in Humboldt county over 60% voted against prop 8. I can say that I was honestly surprised that the number was that high, I expected it to be much lower.
We should never, ever vote to discriminate, which creating a priveleged class with "special" rights based upon behavior is discriminating.
What special rights? The 1040 special rights straights get when they apply for a federally sanctioned marriage license at he courthouse? As long as those rights or privileges are denied gays and lesbians, then those rights are special. Equal means I am treated the same and get the same, not a separate set of less privileges for gays and a full set for straights. We should pay less in taxes then.
There isnt one section of the 14th amendment that would hold legal grounds for gay marriage. The only argument that you can make is that that it violates the pursuit of happiness which appears in the Declaration of Independence.
The 14th Amendment argument is not too strong legally speaking, but it's certainly stronger than the Declaration which is not considered a binding law in the usual sense (only in the sense of nullifying Americans' prior legal obligations to the mother country.) And it's a good thing, because if anyone can define their own pursuit of happiness in his own way, no law could stand.
The equal protection (14th Amendment) argument is susceptible to the counterargument that same-sex marriage bans are facially neutral and are applied to everyone equally. Equal protection does not mean equal satisfaction. While I deplore the result in this case, I can't honestly disagree with the reasoning.
Of course, some state constitutions have other provisions that may provide a better basis for the establishment of an equality right, and if gay people litigate it on that basis, good for them. If they try to get it passed by legislation or referendum, that's good too.
What NO state should have a right to do under the comity and full faith and credit clauses of the Constitution is to deny recognition to other states' legal marriages.
Our government was laid out to protect the minorties too.
Just like when interracial marriage got legalized, we need to stop this idiocy of putting it to the ballots and actually just give them the equality they deserve.
Right. When have civil rights ever been gained at the ballot box? They've always been enacted through legislation, usually as a result of blood, sweat, tears and more blood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
