Proposition 8 in California, 2008 page 48

What about the marriage between a gay guy and a gay guy who has surgically split his penis in two? Is that going to fly once the public hears about it? ( the sicko is into physical mutilation )

And on a side note… would that erhm.. double penis not be better for a woman partner, not a man?

blush

Why do think that gays are the only freaks around? what people do with their body is their problem, not someone else’s.

Originally posted by Vanguarde:

What about the marriage between a gay guy and a gay guy who has surgically split his penis in two? Is that going to fly once the public hears about it? ( the sicko is into physical mutilation )

And on a side note… would that erhm.. double penis not be better for a woman partner, not a man?

blush

We let people with tattoos and piercings get married don’t we?

Just an update, a suit challenging Prop 8 is now at the federal level. Trial is set for January at District Court.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Just an update, a suit challenging Prop 8 is now at the federal level. Trial is set for January at District Court.

Oh man, finally. January is a lot sooner than I’d expect, to be honest. Although I’m not too optimistic, I’m thrilled that the pro-marriage backers managed to get the case elevated to this level. I just hope the judge and jury on that trial will be as level headed and open minded as the judge in that report.

It’s ridiculous it’s taken even this long. This country’s justice system has been a joke for a long time, however.

The people of California have already spoken, the challenge will fail.

Originally posted by CaptainMouse64:

The people of California have already spoken, the challenge will fail.

People in the south had already spoken about slavery, but that didn’t seem to keep it around. The majority is not always right, nor does it always get what it wants.

Originally posted by CaptainMouse64:

The people of California have already spoken, the challenge will fail.

If you want us to believe you aren’t Vangaurde, you should stop making posts which are copy pasted from Vangaurde.

Originally posted by Carados:

Originally posted by CaptainMouse64:

The people of California have already spoken, the challenge will fail.

If you want us to believe you aren’t Vangaurde, you should stop making posts which are copy pasted from Vangaurde.

How dare you continue to accuse me of being a hated user who is long gone, and banned.

STOP IT.

I am pro-gay, not anti-gay.

I was simply stating how powerful hate can be in this country.

I can see how that statement would be viewed as both ways, after all, lets not hate.

Anyway, true, I keep finding myself in agony, on a newsource my class listens to, they had an article on a gay right movement, my class was appaled. I was in shock that the class wouldn’t even listen to the person (for the legalization of same sex marridge) for even a moment, they just kept saying “Oh come on”. Right after that it showed a counter-movement and it showed a man holding a sign that had something Christian on it, with the result of “Oh my god, THANK YOU”.

Just shows how much kids are put to dislike people who are gay.

Well, this suit sounds nice, I hope it succeeds.

Equality is a very worthwhile ideal, but what is it? Should some one be allowed to marry a brother or sister? Or what about a child, there is a case before the courts where a father is saying he is being discriminated against, by being charged, for having consensual intimate relations with his adult, (in her 20s) daughter.

It’s been a while, but Prop 8 has resurfaced, so this thread can as well.

A federal judge recently ruled that Prop 8 was uncostitutional. This issue could go all the way to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court finds Prop 8 unconstitutional, then any gay marriage ban anywhere in the country would also be unconstitutional. Gay marriage would become legal throughout the country since it would be unconstitutional to ban it. The issue would be settled for good (at least as far as the law is concerned). About 3 years after Prop 8 passed in California, it is back in the spotlight, but now the issues surrounding it might affect the whole country.
So what are people’s opinions on this new development?

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand. It was a legal vote turned over by an activist judge, who turned out to be gay. He should have excused himself from the case on grounds he was possibly biased.

For Prop 8

Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

Against Prop 8

What is Prop 8?
If passed, Prop 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Proposition 8:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Originally posted by Pooky:

oh my god they’re changing the definition of marriage
IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD!

seriously come on

besides change is good

wtf. hell no change isn’t (always) good. SOME change is good. Not all.

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand. It was a legal vote turned over by an activist judge, who turned out to be gay. He should have excused himself from the case on grounds he was possibly biased.

So, should all conservative judges recuse themselves from the case in future? It really doesn’t matter if the majority did or did not vote for prop 8 (and they did not) if the law itself is unconstitutional. You cannot expect the courts to ignore that a law is unconstitutional simply because it has public support. And it’s a little hypocritical to say that they should, given other statements you’ve made regarding the law.

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand.

Completely ignoring the fact that if it is unconstitutional your constitution is worthless if it can just be voted away, I still cannot understand your statement on this matter. Since you ignored my post in the thread about homosexuals, I’ll just ask you one of my many points here once more.

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

Originally posted by Redem:

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand. It was a legal vote turned over by an activist judge, who turned out to be gay. He should have excused himself from the case on grounds he was possibly biased.

So, should all conservative judges recuse themselves from the case in future? It really doesn’t matter if the majority did or did not vote for prop 8 (and they did not) if the law itself is unconstitutional. You cannot expect the courts to ignore that a law is unconstitutional simply because it has public support. And it’s a little hypocritical to say that they should, given other statements you’ve made regarding the law.

You are thinking in terms of the Federal Constitution and Prop 8 was the State of California’s Constitutional Amendment. They are two different documents.

And yes, the majority of voters voted for Prop 8 or it would never have passed. Our laws require a judge to recuse themselves if they think they might have interests that could be a direct conflict to the case. As he was gay and judging on a gay case the question of bias can be raised. He has since resigned his position.

Of course he is biased. He’s getting an inequality treatment.

And if it’s constitutional to discriminate based on gender, then you’ve pretty much never had the status of “land of the free”.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand.

Completely ignoring the fact that if it is unconstitutional your constitution is worthless if it can just be voted away, I still cannot understand your statement on this matter. Since you ignored my post in the thread about homosexuals, I’ll just ask you one of my many points here once more.

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

Yes Dark. Even though we have freedoms they are not infinite. When I say gays have the same freedoms as I do, they do. Our guaranteed rights come from the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. These are rights that cannot be legislated away directly, although I think I should send a copy of the Constitution to Obama.

We do have what are called civil rights. These are not the same as the Bill of Rights and are granted by what I would call society. These civil rights are recognized by our government but they can be changed. This is what your gay friends should be trying to change. However, they are trying to use the Constitution and they will not be able to change the document. They may be able to have a different definition from the Supreme court on some part of it, but you must remember the Supreme court leans right.

To put it bluntly, I do not believe a small percentage of minorities should be able to go against the masses and usurp their wishes on legislation by going to court and having (in California at least) liberal judges throw out the bill.

It is not a land of the free when those with the most freedoms prevent others from gaining the same.

You are thinking in terms of the Federal Constitution and Prop 8 was the State of California’s Constitutional Amendment. They are two different documents.

Both constitutions are legally binding, though, for the same reasons.

And yes, the majority of voters voted for Prop 8 or it would never have passed.

You’re mistaken, it’s the majority of people who cared enough to vote on the subject, a very different thing. Far from a majority of the people of California.

Our laws require a judge to recuse themselves if they think they might have interests that could be a direct conflict to the case. As he was gay and judging on a gay case the question of bias can be raised. He has since resigned his position.

And I repeat my question, should a conservative judge do the same? Being gay is no more an indication of a conflict of interest in this case than being conservative would be.

1. true

2. Yes, you are right, but they did vote and the legislation did pass. That is how the law works.

3. Here is where you are missing something. there are conservative gays too. Yes, if a conservative gay is confronted with a case like Prop 8, he should recuse himself too. This is judicial ethics.

Goodnight Redem