Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

[Mags 112]

They have all the rights as anyone else. They are free to marry, but not a member of the same sex. Why? Because marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman (along with a few other societal caveats). Anything else is is something else. Homosexuality is not illegal in the USA.

No, they don't have the same rights. If they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex and heterosexuals are, then that means their rights are limited.

Homosexual parity with heterosexuals is not culturally acceptable to the vast majority of America. Neither is polygamy. Societies have the right to determine societal norms and values that are in the best interests of their society.

Polygamy is not the same thing. That's just being greedy and wanting more than one partner - It isn't something you are born with, it's something certain religious members are taught.

And no, if letting a country choose how to treat certain members means it removes their rights then that's wrong. There are lots of countries worldwide who make decisions on how to treat their own which results in severe restriction.

Look at some of the countries below the equator who are allowed to treat women as second class citizens?

Is that right, in your opinion? I'm betting you'll answer no.

Otherwise marriage just becomes the lowest common denominator that anyone deems it to be. The vast majority of Americans want limits and boundries of what marriage is (i.e.: between one man and one woman with several other cultural and societal limits).

Marriage has been the lowest common denominator for a very long time. Letting homosexuals marry has nothing to do with this.

I'd also like to mention that in nature, most species of animals will try to mate with their own sex. Humans doing the same thing is not unnatural. It's just that so many people are conditioned by religion, parents or via their upbringing to think it is wrong.

Letting Ellen DeGeneres stay married to Portia Di Rossi really isn't going to bring about the downfall of the USA, y'know.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Magenta

[Danno 1,228]

<<<<Polygamy is not the same thing. That's just being greedy and wanting more than one partner - it isn't something you are born with, it's something certain religious members are taught.>>>

Jeez you are pretty judgmental.

I have never been in a Poly relationship but I'm bettin a lot of them are 3 people in a real relationship, why do you call them greedy?

And just because you think "2" is the magic number for romance.... that does not mean everyone does.

How do you know some people are not BORN, oriented toward three or more partners.

Seems a lot more likely that being "born Gay".

[Mags 112]

Jeez you are pretty judgmental.

I have never been in a Poly relationship but I'm bettin a lot of them are 3 people in a real relationship, why do you call them greedy?

And just because you think "2" is the magic number for romance.... that does not mean everyone does.

How do you know some people are not BORN, oriented toward three or more partners.

Seems a lot more likely that being "born Gay".

Actually, you're getting polygamy confused with polyamorous. I was referring to POLYGAMY. They often get confused but are actually different in many ways.

And no, my greedy comment wasn't judgemental - I was trying to be a tad humorous but you must of missed it. I'll stick a smilie in to make sure no one makes the same mistake.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Magenta

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

<<<<Polygamy is not the same thing. That's just being greedy and wanting more than one partner - it isn't something you are born with, it's something certain religious members are taught.>>>

Jeez you are pretty judgmental.

I have never been in a Poly relationship but I'm bettin a lot of them are 3 people in a real relationship, why do you call them greedy?

And just because you think "2" is the magic number for romance.... that does not mean everyone does.

How do you know some people are not BORN, oriented toward three or more partners.

Seems a lot more likely that being "born Gay".

Danno - perhaps you don't realise this but plural marriage is only brought up in this way to cynically ridicule gay marriage. Never mind that trying to establish polygamy in law presents some rather unique challenges (to put it mildly), none of which apply to gay marriage.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This debate never advances. Its the same old closet homophobia, clinging to flawed preconceptions about what is or isn't "natural", using dubious ideology to create spurious definitions about marriage and throwing in over the top and meaningless comParisons to justify it all.

You think the same about incestuous marriage. Who's closed minded?

You fail again lucky.

[MissStacey 1]

I'm all for gay rights- always have been. I think a gay marriage should be recognized everywhere and a gay couple should have the same rights a straight married couple have.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

No, they don't have the same rights. If they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex and heterosexuals are, then that means their rights are limited.

heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the same sex?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Go Jerry Brown! He's absolutely right.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is pushing back, urging the state Supreme Court to invalidate Prop. 8, declaring that "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification." Brown is responsible for upholding the state's laws, and Brown said last month that he planned to "defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California," but has come up with a compelling legal reason not to.

The California Constitution protects certain rights as "inalienable," Brown wrote. Those include a right to liberty and to privacy, which the courts have said includes a person's right to marry.

The issue before the court "presents a conflict between the constitutional power of the voters to amend the Constitution, on the one hand, and the Constitution's Declaration of Rights, on the other," Brown wrote.

The issue "is whether rights secured under the state Constitution's safeguard of liberty as an 'inalienable' right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment."

Voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, but to use the ballot box to take away an "inalienable" right would establish a "tyranny of the majority," which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, he wrote.

It's a fairly straightforward pitch: there are certain rights that are not subject to popularity contests. This is one of them.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'm not a huge proponent or opponent of allowing homosexuals to marry. Overall, it doesn't matter to me. Unless they're harming me in some way, I just don't care.

But... since I like debating, let's try this hypothetical scenario: You have a son or daughter that turns out to be homosexual. Would you want to allow or deny your child all of the same rights that you and your SO have had?

If you can honestly say, "Yes," than that's fine. You believe in something and are sticking to it, no matter how anyone else feels. If, however, you think your son or daughter should have the same rights as any heterosexual, then you might need to readjust your thinking a little.

[desert_fox 32]

Go Jerry Brown! He's absolutely right.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is pushing back, urging the state Supreme Court to invalidate Prop. 8, declaring that "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification." Brown is responsible for upholding the state's laws, and Brown said last month that he planned to "defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California," but has come up with a compelling legal reason not to.

The California Constitution protects certain rights as "inalienable," Brown wrote. Those include a right to liberty and to privacy, which the courts have said includes a person's right to marry.

It's a fairly straightforward pitch: there are certain rights that are not subject to popularity contests. This is one of them.

Anything that Jerry Brown, I'm against. He almost destroyed Caif when he was Governor (Gov. Moonbeam....aptly named).

Since when is the greatness of a society determined by whether or not it allows gays to marry. That is what destroyed (among others) that destroyed the Roman Empire.

The ppl of the State of Calif have spoken....the ultimate test.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm not a huge proponent or opponent of allowing homosexuals to marry. Overall, it doesn't matter to me. Unless they're harming me in some way, I just don't care.

But... since I like debating, let's try this hypothetical scenario: You have a son or daughter that turns out to be homosexual. Would you want to allow or deny your child all of the same rights that you and your SO have had?

If you can honestly say, "Yes," than that's fine. You believe in something and are sticking to it, no matter how anyone else feels. If, however, you think your son or daughter should have the same rights as any heterosexual, then you might need to readjust your thinking a little.

Its not that hypothetical, DPX.

You are spot on and indeed, it all boils down to people not really giving a rat's rear end about other people's civil rights strictly based on their own limited interpretation of religion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Go Jerry Brown! He's absolutely right.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is pushing back, urging the state Supreme Court to invalidate Prop. 8, declaring that "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification." Brown is responsible for upholding the state's laws, and Brown said last month that he planned to "defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California," but has come up with a compelling legal reason not to.

The California Constitution protects certain rights as "inalienable," Brown wrote. Those include a right to liberty and to privacy, which the courts have said includes a person's right to marry.

It's a fairly straightforward pitch: there are certain rights that are not subject to popularity contests. This is one of them.

Anything that Jerry Brown, I'm against. He almost destroyed Caif when he was Governor (Gov. Moonbeam....aptly named).

Since when is the greatness of a society determined by whether or not it allows gays to marry. That is what destroyed (among others) that destroyed the Roman Empire.

The ppl of the State of Calif have spoken....the ultimate test.

The collapse of the Roman empire had nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.

[Danno 1,228]

Go Jerry Brown! He's absolutely right.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is pushing back, urging the state Supreme Court to invalidate Prop. 8, declaring that "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification." Brown is responsible for upholding the state's laws, and Brown said last month that he planned to "defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California," but has come up with a compelling legal reason not to.

The California Constitution protects certain rights as "inalienable," Brown wrote. Those include a right to liberty and to privacy, which the courts have said includes a person's right to marry.

It's a fairly straightforward pitch: there are certain rights that are not subject to popularity contests. This is one of them.

Anything that Jerry Brown, I'm against. He almost destroyed Caif when he was Governor (Gov. Moonbeam....aptly named).

Since when is the greatness of a society determined by whether or not it allows gays to marry. That is what destroyed (among others) that destroyed the Roman Empire.

The ppl of the State of Calif have spoken....the ultimate test.

And let's say a Prop from Cal. passed which outlaw automatic handguns from being sold, would Gov Moonbeam

... who is so committed to "rights" , be working his heart out to nullify that?

Or would he hide behind "the will of the people" statements?

[HAL 9000 96]

Go Jerry Brown! He's absolutely right.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is pushing back, urging the state Supreme Court to invalidate Prop. 8, declaring that "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification." Brown is responsible for upholding the state's laws, and Brown said last month that he planned to "defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California," but has come up with a compelling legal reason not to.

The California Constitution protects certain rights as "inalienable," Brown wrote. Those include a right to liberty and to privacy, which the courts have said includes a person's right to marry.

It's a fairly straightforward pitch: there are certain rights that are not subject to popularity contests. This is one of them.

Anything that Jerry Brown, I'm against. He almost destroyed Caif when he was Governor (Gov. Moonbeam....aptly named).

Since when is the greatness of a society determined by whether or not it allows gays to marry. That is what destroyed (among others) that destroyed the Roman Empire.

The ppl of the State of Calif have spoken....the ultimate test.

And let's say a Prop from Cal. passed which outlaw automatic handguns from being sold, would Gov Moonbeam

... who is so committed to "rights" , be working his heart out to nullify that?

Or would he hide behind "the will of the people" statements?

Slip slip slip slip...

[jundp 191]

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.

This says it all right here. The amendment process CANNOT be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification. How much clearer can this be?

The state constitution AND the US constitution call for fundamental rights. You CANNOT take those away willy-nilly. Period. End of story.

It will be an uphill battle, but I hope in the end the fundamental rights of all will be upheld. This is like saying "hey I think I'll take away the marriage rights of inter-racial couples." Whether anyone likes it or not, these people were LEGALLY joined in marriage. Legally.

And I'm sorry, but I'm a heterosexual woman married to a heterosexual man and I don't feel like my marriage has been assaulted. That's plain ridiculous.