California State Measure Results

[akdiver 3]

gays are people too!

So are polygamists (:

[Amby 490]

gays are people too!

So are polygamists (:

I have nothing against them either

I'm very disappointed in the people of California. I had hopes for a more enlightened vote.

ditto

[HAL 9000 96]

gays are people too!

So are polygamists (:

If that's their thing, then so be it. However, the discussion is about gay marriage- not polygamy.

[IAMX 3,055]

Akdiver, citizens aren't much versed in law, so letting citizens decide on these aspects of law is pointless and dumb. The government took away slavery, the government took away suppression of women, the government took away Jim Crow laws / segregation, the government took away, in several states, the banning of marriage between gays. It would have been equally stupid to leave slavery up to a citizen vote.

Courts determine constitutionality of everything related to law. Laws, statutes, initiatives. Their say is the last word. For better or worse.

Edited November 6, 2008 by SRVT

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you are married to woman A, B, C, and man D, and each of your partners has husbands and wives of their own - how exactly are you going to file taxes, decide on who gets custody of the kids, what inheritance or divorce settlement people are entitled to?

Same way it determined now. Mutual agreement, law, regulation and the courts.

Hell, look at the issues caused by couple A&B hiring person C to be a sperm donor and person D to be a surrogate mother. And oh, by the way, despite the contract in place, after the baby is born, some people start changing their minds....the courts figure all this ####### out eventually.

Marriage is just a contract. I see no reason to limit it to 2 people, nor want people can put in their contract.

If you expand marriage to allow everyone to marry as many people as they want, there's essentially no benefit to marriage at all. We might as well abolish entirely it in favor of many open relationships with no legal entanglements of any kind.

That isn't what's being proposed in terms of gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't destroy the fundamental structure of marriage as a committed, monogamous relationship between two people. If you get rid of the monogamy (which is what really defines marriage) - the entire concept of marriage becomes pointless.

Akdiver, citizens aren't much versed in law, so letting citizens decide on these aspects of law is pointless and dumb. The government took away slavery, the government took away suppression of women, the government took away Jim Crow laws / segregation, the government took away, in several states, the banning of marriage between gays. It would have been equally stupid to leave slavery up to a citizen vote.

Courts determine constitutionality of everything related to law. Laws, statutes, initiatives. Their say is the last word. For better or worse.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[HAL 9000 96]

Like I said- the only variable that changes between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions is gender. This is clearly gender discrimination based on factors that are essentially extralegal.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Was that a slow, yet slippery slope?

I believe so.

Frankly put... keeping all variables equal except gender to legalize marriage, there is no reason to prohibit the practice of same-sex marriage other than to use a religious definition to define a social one. That in itself makes it bigotry.

Civil law does not define church law. The ceremony itself can be practiced in more than one fashion. Again I do not understand the rationale for voters to oppose legalized marriage in parallel to heterosexual unions. What fears are being exploited to impose wills here?

Agreed. If a heterosexual couple can marry outside of the religious establishment, in a civil ceremony - or indeed by Elvis impersonators in Vegas, it would be fair to say that marriage is not a concept that the religious establishment has exclusive ownership of.

[Amby 490]

gays are people too!

So are polygamists (:

If that's their thing, then so be it. However, the discussion is about gay marriage- not polygamy.

I agree with HAL...smart computer

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In 5000 years the world might be resemble a polygamist commune - who can tell.

Why must we suddenly push for polygamy simply to recognise gay marriage?

It's a bait and switch argument.

[HAL 9000 96]

Was that a slow, yet slippery slope?

I believe so.

Frankly put... keeping all variables equal except gender to legalize marriage, there is no reason to prohibit the practice of same-sex marriage other than to use a religious definition to define a social one. That in itself makes it bigotry.

Civil law does not define church law. The ceremony itself can be practiced in more than one fashion. Again I do not understand the rationale for voters to oppose legalized marriage in parallel to heterosexual unions. What fears are being exploited to impose wills here?

Agreed. If a heterosexual couple can marry outside of the religious establishment, in a civil ceremony - or indeed by Elvis impersonators in Vegas, it would be fair to say that marriage is not a concept that the religious establishment has exclusive ownership of.

Precisely. If Prop 8 makes any sense, again... with all the variables being equal in the term marriage except for gender... then the wording should equally have prohibited heterosexual marriage outside of whatever criteria was used to promote the prohibition of same sex marriage.

Its all preposterous and incongruent.

In 5000 years the world might be resemble a polygamist commune - who can tell.

Why must we suddenly push for polygamy simply to recognise gay marriage?

It's a bait and switch argument.

Indeed a very slippery slope.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm very disappointed in the people of California. I had hopes for a more enlightened vote.

Agreed. However, I think the smudging of the lines was partly to blame - that and the 'traditional' word. Traditional is meaningless related to marriage, but hey, nothing new there.

[IAMX 3,055]

Once again, the most surprising vote in these state props is the redistricting one. Can't believe people managed to spot the political means behind the 2 energy propositions but not the redistricting measure. #######.

[Peikko 1,575]

Homosexuality has all the 'taboo' markers that make people feel very unsafe when they are asked to upset the apple cart. Can't be seen to be the one who has allowed something 'sinful' to become legal.

Of course, that doesn't explain how quickly and easily divorce/re-marriage fell in the end. People can be odd about things they feel protective of.

[mawilson 2,133]

Can't be seen to be the one who has allowed something 'sinful' to become legal.

Wouldn't bother me, if I were a politician.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Prop 8 loses and anyone who doesn't like that is a hater.