Poll: California Prop 8 (Gay Marriage)

[frerottenextelway]

Proposition 8 is an initiative to amend the California state constitution to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."

Thoughts?

Poll coming....

[snowspot66]

No. The sooner this **** is put behind us the better. If religious groups spent nearly as much time and money fighting poverty, domestic, abuse, etc, as they spend fighting gay marriage the world would be a much better place.

[Mr.Meanie]

I don't live there (thank god) and they can do whatever the hell they want to.

[Bronco Bob]

Just more right wing stupidity. The only real purpose of crap like this
is to energize the base and give them something to get out and vote
for. Lord know, nothing about their candidates inspires anyone.
Arizona has something equally idiotic, Proposition 102, that defines
marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Except that Arizona already has a law on the books that
prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.
So what purpose does prop 102 serve other than to arouse
the bigots and religious nuts.

[Hogan11]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

No. The sooner this **** is put behind us the better. If religious groups spent nearly as much time and money fighting poverty, domestic, abuse, etc, as they spend fighting gay marriage the world would be a much better place.

100% correct.

It's a bullshat "issue"

[gunns]

I'm glad it's a state issue. It's just another example of what the right likes to stereotype the left of doing, big government interferring in our lives. The Republicans are becoming quite good at it. Why shouldn't they be able to marry?

[Play2win]

Let the people of California decide. Make all these social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) STATE ISSUES!!

That way if certain people are so adament about their ideologies and theologies, they can MOVE to a STATE that better alligns with their beliefs, while at the same time, helping keeping this nation a "more perfect union". (word palin would be clueless about...)

[Play2win]

Originally Posted by gunns

I'm glad it's a state issue. It's just another example of what the right likes to stereotype the left of doing, big government interferring in our lives. The Republicans are becoming quite good at it. Why shouldn't they be able to marry?

The Republicon party is the Socialism party, plain and simple.

[PaintballCLE]

ok im against gay marriage......but i can compromise........how bout we localize it even more..........if they wanna get married fine, but keep it to SF

[baja]

I for couples rights but using the same certificate as traditional marriage I am opposed to.

[watermock]

It will help eliminate the species.We are talking about marriage and it's vow,yes?

[SoCalBronco]

I have not decided on Prop 8 yet, nor Prop 10 (although I'm leaning No on 10) or Prop 6.

I will be voting No on 1A, 2 and 5. Yes on 3, 4, 7, 9 and 11.

[cutthemdown]

One thing I want to ask. If consenting adults should be able to live how they want. If we have reached a point where we say marriage is between consenting adults regardless of sex, couldn't an argument also be made for someone who wants to have 2 wives. I mean as long as everyone is consenting.

I'd like to hear a persons argument why it should be ok for 2 men to marry, but wrong for someone to have 2 wives. As long as everyone is consenting what would the harm be in allowing men or women to have more then one husband or wife?

[BABronco]

I voted other. I think that they should have the same right all around but lets just sugar coat it and call it something else.

[baja]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

One thing I want to ask. If consenting adults should be able to live how they want. If we have reached a point where we say marriage is between consenting adults regardless of sex, couldn't an argument also be made for someone who wants to have 2 wives. I mean as long as everyone is consenting.

I'd like to hear a persons argument why it should be ok for 2 men to marry, but wrong for someone to have 2 wives. As long as everyone is consenting what would the harm be in allowing men or women to have more then one husband or wife?

Fine on two wives or two husbands who cares.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by baja

Fine on two wives or two husbands who cares.

Can you see my point though? That when you say hey let consenting adults do what they want it can be taken so far many people for gay marriage might not want people to have more then one spouse.

I have also heard the argument homosexuality occurs in nature, so there is nothing wrong with it. Some people are just gay.

Couldn't someone fire back with in nature animals often have more then one mate. To have 2 wives is natural just like a lion have more then one lioness, or a gorilla having 4-5 females.

I'm just wondering how people feel about taking it another step further.

I'm not surprised Baja takes sort a hedonistic view of the world. But what about some of the more conservative people who happen to be for letting gays marry. What do you think about then saying people can have more then one husband or wife. (why anyone would want more then one I don't know, but I also don't really get gay sex)

[24champ]

Originally Posted by DS49

Let the people of California decide.

They already did several years ago, it was called Prop 22. 61 percent voted to pass it.

[enjolras]

I have no moral issue with someone taking on two wives. I really don't care (tax issues are an issue that would need to be thought through).

The argument that if you allow gay marriage, then you have to allow polygamy. Then if you allow polygamy you have to allow people to get married to their pets.

That's a slippery slope argument, and it's not valid. They are all completely seperate questions.

From the governments perspective there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual one. They are two consenting adults living together. I, for one, support the notion of the government getting out of the 'marriage' business. Everyone gets a recognition of a civil union from the government, and its up to the individuals to call it what they will.

[Play2win]

Originally Posted by A.L.F.

They already did several years ago, it was called Prop 22. 61 percent voted to pass it.

Well, there you go then.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by enjolras

I have no moral issue with someone taking on two wives. I really don't care (tax issues are an issue that would need to be thought through).

The argument that if you allow gay marriage, then you have to allow polygamy. Then if you allow polygamy you have to allow people to get married to their pets.

That's a slippery slope argument, and it's not valid. They are all completely seperate questions.

From the governments perspective there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual one. They are two consenting adults living together. I, for one, support the notion of the government getting out of the 'marriage' business. Everyone gets a recognition of a civil union from the government, and its up to the individuals to call it what they will.

I would argue that animals don't have the intelligence to prove they understand what marriage is, or the ability to consent.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by DS49

Well, there you go then.

Problem is, California Supreme Court activist Judges took matters into their own hands and essentially ignored the voters and overruled them. That's why Prop 8 is being voted on for this election.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by A.L.F.

Problem is, California Supreme Court activist Judges took matters into their own hands and essentially ignored the voters and overruled them. That's why Prop 8 is being voted on for this election.

That is one purpose of Judges, to overrule unconstitutional laws and at the state level to overrule portions of the state constitution that conflict with the U.S. Consitution. The reason this is part of their job is that California, like the U.S. Federal Government, is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, meaning that no law can be made that is not compatible with the constitution. Even if 100% of the people vote for a law or amendment, it can be overruled if it violates the state or federal constitution.

Anytime I hear someone say the phrase "activist judge" I know I am dealing with someone who doesn't understand, at a very fundamental level, our system of government.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Can you see my point though? That when you say hey let consenting adults do what they want it can be taken so far many people for gay marriage might not want people to have more then one spouse.

I have also heard the argument homosexuality occurs in nature, so there is nothing wrong with it. Some people are just gay.

Couldn't someone fire back with in nature animals often have more then one mate. To have 2 wives is natural just like a lion have more then one lioness, or a gorilla having 4-5 females.

I'm just wondering how people feel about taking it another step further.

I'm not surprised Baja takes sort a hedonistic view of the world. But what about some of the more conservative people who happen to be for letting gays marry. What do you think about then saying people can have more then one husband or wife. (why anyone would want more then one I don't know, but I also don't really get gay sex)

It's a non issue. They are two completely unrelated issues and one should have no bearing on the other. If either did have bearing on the other then we would have to ask ourselves why we should allow anybody to get married. If we let the straight people get married then other people will want to get married to their gay lovers, their lawnmowers, dogs, and their home appliances. If people want to claim a slippery slope then they have to recognize that the first step on this slope was the idea of our "traditional" marriage.

If we allow gay marriage, and there is no legal/logical reason why we shouldn't, and some guy wants to marry two women well than that one guy will have to go through what gay people have went through. He'll have to find support for it and get it through the courts. Each is it's own separate issue. Blending the two together is just a way to muddy the argument and is irrelevant.

[Rohirrim]

Some people just don't get the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" concept. Why does anybody even care? If it's not your life, what business is it of yours?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

No. The sooner this **** is put behind us the better. If religious groups spent nearly as much time and money fighting poverty, domestic, abuse, etc, as they spend fighting gay marriage the world would be a much better place.

But you dont understand , so I will explain it to you ...God loves women and child beaters ,The good lord sayeth , beat the b!tch until she learns , and bust that rod over that kids ass untill they stop being stupid God sayeth , Work youre ass off or starve, never come to Jesus for a hand out , but everyone knows God Hates Fags and Hillary Clinton, I dont remember the verse or chapter though .........