Prop 8 proponents file suit to nullify 18,000 gay marriages

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Portia De Rossi (Ellen DeGeneres' wife) Public Service Announcement:



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



gay people got the right to be as miserable as everybody else...
 
[quote author="MojoJD" date=1236833207]Honestly, I'll never be able to understand prop 8 supporters. Phobia, perhaps.



Or why not an alternative where NO ONE is recognized as "married" by the gov, but you can file to have your union [with anyone] acknowledged by the state (for tax/property/obligation sharing purposes). Then, people could handle the "marriage" part with their own church/ceremony/beliefs and still refer to themselves as such. I just dont see why the government has ANY business regulating ANYONE's marriage.</blockquote>


MojoJD-



I'm on the same page as you although I personally do not support gay marriage. With that out, I also must say that I am a libertarian and in that, I don't think government has any business in marriage anyways.



I suppose the government thinks it does because as in all things in life, any establish tradition or institution, whether making moonshine, getting married or dieing.. the government wants to skim a little of the top so it only makes sense they would with marriage too, being an institution from who knows how long. I also can lend a bit of credence to the argument that marriage typically, not always and especially these days, leads to the production of children thus equaling more taxpayers for the future. I can see why the government would want to support this and clearly a homosexual couple could never produce offspring so I get that argument BUT unmarried heterosexual couples can produce children as well so that argument falls a little short although I think caries a little weight. (I am aware that there are homesecual couples raising children out there but I don't know the numbers and doubt there are enough to put weight to.)



Its such a complicated an intertwined issue that really anyone can attach their belief to any part of the long string of thoughts and claim they are correct.



Sometimes I wonder though if people want to be associated with a WORD because it's perceived as normal or something worth obtaining. In my opinion, whats the big deal about being able to say you are "married" versus a civil union or domestic partnership. Yes I know, there are a FEW legal differences between the two, but how about the LGBT focusing on making those equal vs. trying to obtain validity into a word and institution that quite frankly doesn't tend to accept them anyways? I honestly don't get it but I am willing to listen.



HOW I SEE IT/ EXAMPLE: I know several African Americans who in the past had been treated unequally vs. a White American, and rightfully so, wanted equal treatment. But would they want to be White? NO! They are proud of their differences and celebrate them. How about retain those differences but just call themselves White for the perceived benefits at that time... NO! In my opinion and theirs, that would be a) physically impossible and b) betraying your roots for physical/ material gains.



Is it worth being able to say your "married" if a majority of the population doesn't think you really are?



Isn't it more worth it to fight for REAL equal rights like visitation of partners in the hospital, etc?



Wouldn't it be better for the government to be out of ALL our personal relationships? Be a committed partner whether Homosexual or Heterosexual and for Pete sake, can't all of us focus on MORE important things like our future generations, the well being of this planet, the economy, the world and charity?



my .02 cents which probably is only worth .02 cents to me.
 
Hi Stryprod and welcome to the forums. Your .02 cents are always considered, no worries.



I will briefly try and respond to your post, since it appears I'm the only homosexual on here (srsly...am I the only one?)



<em>I can see why the government would want to support this and clearly a homosexual couple could never produce offspring</em> wrong. We lesbians are quite fertile, and produce more offspring than you can shake a stick at. Think: Sperm bank.



<em>Sometimes I wonder though if people want to be associated with a WORD because it?s perceived as normal or something worth obtaining. In my opinion, whats the big deal about being able to say you are ?married? versus a civil union or domestic partnership.

</em> Valid question...but just stop for a second, and think if a gay majority ruled out your possibility of a marriage (even though u might not want one)... wouldn't that just piss you right the f*ck off?



<em>HOW I SEE IT/ EXAMPLE: I know several African Americans who in the past had been treated unequally vs. a White American, and rightfully so, wanted equal treatment. But would they want to be White? NO! They are proud of their differences and celebrate them. </em> Oh honey, I don't want to be straight..... I just want to be equal and enjoy the same rights you do. I mean, I pay all the taxes.....and I want all the benefits.



<em>Is it worth being able to say your ?married? if a majority of the population doesn?t think you really are?</em> Well, I hope you are just speaking for yourself there. I have plenty of married friends (Connecticut and Massachusetts).....and they don't put "quotations" around the word married. They really ARE married. Really. Not kidding.



<em>Isn?t it more worth it to fight for REAL equal rights like visitation of partners in the hospital, etc?</em> Marriage would afford all of these rights. Why not go for the whole ball of wax? ;)



We really just want to be equal to everyone else. Or don't have us pay as many taxes.... you pick.



No snark intended, just frustration ! Thanks for the comments.
 
Thanks, Troop. I've been wondering where you were as I felt that only a gay person could respond to that post. BTW, I have friends who are TRULY married here in California.
 
Trooper-

No offense taken! In fact, I appreciate your rather candid, well thought out and kind response. I only wish both sides of most arguments could be so grown up these days you know! Regardless, I'm happiest having government leave all adults alone so long as they don't directly affect each other.



I think that would solve this issue and a lot of other issues too!



[quote author="Trooper" date=1239098872]Hi Stryprod and welcome to the forums. Your .02 cents are always considered, no worries.



I will briefly try and respond to your post, since it appears I'm the only homosexual on here (srsly...am I the only one?)



<em>I can see why the government would want to support this and clearly a homosexual couple could never produce offspring</em> wrong. We lesbians are quite fertile, and produce more offspring than you can shake a stick at. Think: Sperm bank.



<em>Sometimes I wonder though if people want to be associated with a WORD because it?s perceived as normal or something worth obtaining. In my opinion, whats the big deal about being able to say you are ?married? versus a civil union or domestic partnership.

</em> Valid question...but just stop for a second, and think if a gay majority ruled out your possibility of a marriage (even though u might not want one)... wouldn't that just piss you right the f*ck off?



<em>HOW I SEE IT/ EXAMPLE: I know several African Americans who in the past had been treated unequally vs. a White American, and rightfully so, wanted equal treatment. But would they want to be White? NO! They are proud of their differences and celebrate them. </em> Oh honey, I don't want to be straight..... I just want to be equal and enjoy the same rights you do. I mean, I pay all the taxes.....and I want all the benefits.



<em>Is it worth being able to say your ?married? if a majority of the population doesn?t think you really are?</em> Well, I hope you are just speaking for yourself there. I have plenty of married friends (Connecticut and Massachusetts).....and they don't put "quotations" around the word married. They really ARE married. Really. Not kidding.



<em>Isn?t it more worth it to fight for REAL equal rights like visitation of partners in the hospital, etc?</em> Marriage would afford all of these rights. Why not go for the whole ball of wax? ;)



We really just want to be equal to everyone else. Or don't have us pay as many taxes.... you pick.



No snark intended, just frustration ! Thanks for the comments.</blockquote>
 
<em>Regardless, I?m happiest having government leave all adults alone so long as they don?t directly affect each other.</em>



Well, the day that a government can rationally explain to me...how *my* marriage will "directly affect" theirs, I'd be will to listen. I hardly think my marriage will have anything to do with the outcome of yours (or else I'm much more powerful than I *think* I am) ;)
 
Getting my last thoughts in..... Vermont's legislature just approved gay marriage, but the Republican Governor has promised to veto it today. Please call these important swing *DEMOCRATS*, and encourage them to change their vote to ensure a veto-proof margin. Thank you so much. xo



<a href="http://thepoweronline.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/power-action-act-to-overturn-the-vermont-veto-now/">Please do this for me. thank you.</a>
 
Trooper. . . time to celebrate!!! Vermont is no. 4.





<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont</a>
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1239114874]Getting my last thoughts in..... Vermont's legislature just approved gay marriage, but the Republican Governor has promised to veto it today. Please call these important swing *DEMOCRATS*, and encourage them to change their vote to ensure a veto-proof margin. Thank you so much. xo



<a href="http://thepoweronline.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/power-action-act-to-overturn-the-vermont-veto-now/">Please do this for me. thank you.</a></blockquote>


Done.
 
[quote author="Stryprod" date=1238419374][quote author="MojoJD" date=1236833207]Honestly, I'll never be able to understand prop 8 supporters. Phobia, perhaps.



Or why not an alternative where NO ONE is recognized as "married" by the gov, but you can file to have your union [with anyone] acknowledged by the state (for tax/property/obligation sharing purposes). Then, people could handle the "marriage" part with their own church/ceremony/beliefs and still refer to themselves as such. I just dont see why the government has ANY business regulating ANYONE's marriage.</blockquote>


MojoJD-



I'm on the same page as you although I personally do not support gay marriage. With that out, I also must say that I am a libertarian and in that, I don't think government has any business in marriage anyways.



I suppose the government thinks it does because as in all things in life, any establish tradition or institution, whether making moonshine, getting married or dieing.. the government wants to skim a little of the top so it only makes sense they would with marriage too, being an institution from who knows how long. I also can lend a bit of credence to the argument that marriage typically, not always and especially these days, leads to the production of children thus equaling more taxpayers for the future. I can see why the government would want to support this and clearly a homosexual couple could never produce offspring so I get that argument BUT unmarried heterosexual couples can produce children as well so that argument falls a little short although I think caries a little weight. (I am aware that there are homesecual couples raising children out there but I don't know the numbers and doubt there are enough to put weight to.)



Its such a complicated an intertwined issue that really anyone can attach their belief to any part of the long string of thoughts and claim they are correct.



Sometimes I wonder though if people want to be associated with a WORD because it's perceived as normal or something worth obtaining. In my opinion, whats the big deal about being able to say you are "married" versus a civil union or domestic partnership. Yes I know, there are a FEW legal differences between the two, but how about the LGBT focusing on making those equal vs. trying to obtain validity into a word and institution that quite frankly doesn't tend to accept them anyways? I honestly don't get it but I am willing to listen.



HOW I SEE IT/ EXAMPLE: I know several African Americans who in the past had been treated unequally vs. a White American, and rightfully so, wanted equal treatment. But would they want to be White? NO! They are proud of their differences and celebrate them. How about retain those differences but just call themselves White for the perceived benefits at that time... NO! In my opinion and theirs, that would be a) physically impossible and b) betraying your roots for physical/ material gains.



Is it worth being able to say your "married" if a majority of the population doesn't think you really are?



Isn't it more worth it to fight for REAL equal rights like visitation of partners in the hospital, etc?



Wouldn't it be better for the government to be out of ALL our personal relationships? Be a committed partner whether Homosexual or Heterosexual and for Pete sake, can't all of us focus on MORE important things like our future generations, the well being of this planet, the economy, the world and charity?



my .02 cents which probably is only worth .02 cents to me.</blockquote>


I havent checked this thread in a while, so I hope its no too bad of a bump.



I disagree with you a bit here. As long as the government IS regulating marriage (even though I think they should not for any type of couple), it is <strong>unequal treatment under the law</strong> on the basis of sexuality, <strong>a "protected class" as recognized by the CA Supreme Court</strong>, and should therefore not survive an equal protection challenge. I'm a purist when it comes to the law. That "compelling state interest of man-woman marriage" BS was just a disgrace.



For instance, I believe that no 17 year old should EVER be tried as an adult for murder, let alone some 14 year old. If you want harsher sentences, change the laws. Or change the age of adulthood to 16. Making case by case exceptions when it suits the state to do so just makes me sick.



My philosophy is that part of growing and becoming a wiser person is learning to accept the differences of other people. Doing that requires you to look within yourself and ask why you are different. If I had some moral compunction to go out and protest against gay marriage, I would have to ask myself why. Religious upbringing? parents? phobia? fear that my [future] kids would somehow think its ok to be gay? (I think that last one is secretly the big one for most of these people) You then have to realize that your upbringing and views are a matter of circumstance, and that someone else doing things differently is just their roll of the dice. Get off their back.



Also, people who think keeping their kids from learning about gay marriage is going to keep a gay person straight have another thing coming.... and some parent issues when they grow up! haha.



Regarding your arguments about people just wanted "that word", the same argument could be made against the other side. If it is just a word, why work so hard to "defend" it?
 
[quote author="MojoJD" date=1239675726]



I disagree with you a bit here. As long as the government IS regulating marriage (even though I think they should not for any type of couple), it is <strong>unequal treatment under the law</strong> on the basis of sexuality, <strong>a "protected class" as recognized by the US Supreme Court</strong>, and should therefore not survive an equal protection challenge. I'm a purist when it comes to the law. That "compelling state interest of man-woman marriage" BS was just a disgrace.</blockquote>


MojoJD,



The SCOTUS has repeatedly denied granting homosexuals protected class status. I think you might be confusing discrimination based on "sexuality" with discrimination based on sex. I'm curious, are you in law school or have you already graduated (I assume the JD portion of your handle refers to juris doctorate)?
 
I meant CA supreme court, as per their recent decision. (now edited) And yes I have graduated. If I were still in school, I'm sure my con law analysis would be much lengthier.



[edit] What kind of pompous question is that, anyway?
 
[quote author="MojoJD" date=1239836626]



[edit] What kind of pompous question is that, anyway?</blockquote>


I was just curious. No need to be offended; I didn't intend it to be a slight.
 
[quote author="MojoJD" date=1239675726]

I disagree with you a bit here. As long as the government IS regulating marriage (even though I think they should not for any type of couple), it is <strong>unequal treatment under the law</strong> on the basis of sexuality, <strong>a "protected class" as recognized by the CA Supreme Court</strong>, and should therefore not survive an equal protection challenge. I'm a purist when it comes to the law. That "compelling state interest of man-woman marriage" BS was just a disgrace.

</blockquote>


Prop 8 is not subject to state equal protection challenges. The amendment/revision qualifies the equal protection clause of the California constitution by expressly excluding homosexual marriage. A California court interpreting the California equal protection clause may not ignore the express language of the constitution. A California court striking down Prop 8 based on state equal protection grounds would result in the court holding that the constitution itself is unconstitutional, which of course, is an oxymoron. Accordingly, there have been no attempts to invalidate Prop 8 based on equal protection grounds. It would be pointless.



Likewise, I?m unaware of any generally accepted argument that the state has a ?compelling state interest? in limiting marriage between a man and a woman. First, as stated above, the application of elevated scrutiny on language expressly provided in the California constitution, from a California jurisprudence perspective, is misplaced. Second, if the prohibition were challenged federally, the state would only need to prove that the prohibition has a ?rational basis? (SCOTUS justices have previously expressed that a state law which attempts to ?preserve traditional marriage? would be rational). The state would only need to prove it had a ?compelling state interest? with regard to laws that discriminated against certain protected classes i.e. race, religion. And, as you know, homosexuals are not afforded protected class status for federal purposes.
 
We are seeing <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marriage7-2009may07,0,4235897.story">rapid progress.</a> right before our eyes. Just a matter of time and maybe not as much time as anyone thought!
 
O.C. woman removed from Air Force One press area

Brenda Lee who claims she is a religious columnist wanted to give President Obama a letter supporting traditional marriage was detained and later released.



<A href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/lee-letter-president-2431911-obama-staffer">http://www.ocregister.com/articles/lee-letter-president-2431911-obama-staffer</A>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top