Proposition 8 vote upheld. A great victory for democracy. page 3

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

That shouldn’t happen because they either aren’t in our country or are subject to our laws (due to being in our country) and should be afforded similar rights and protections. We should strive to make our own laws as consistent as possible but using someone elses rulebook as rationale is not good reasoning. That’s like saying well Hitler didn’t like Jews so I won’t either.

the laws were written up by the UN which the US is a part of

This isn’t a victory for Democracy, it’s a victory for Fascism.

If gay marriage is allowed, then I should be able to marry multiple people at one time

Because everything is a slippery slope.

Can I marry a 12 yr old (for arguments sake)

No, a 12 year old cannot give consent. Marriage is a legally binding contract, something a minor cannot enter.

If gay marriage is allowed, then I should be able to marry multiple people at one time

Yes, as long as they are all consenting adults. As far as I can tell, monogamy is just another impact religion has had upon our culture. It has no place in a secular government.

Not exactly. Economically speaking, monogamy is more efficient and understandable than polygamy. Even secularly they are entirely separate cases.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

I

Can I marry a 12 yr old (for arguments sake)

No, a 12 year old cannot give consent. Marriage is a legally binding contract, something a minor cannot enter.

If the parents consented as well as the child it would be legal.

If the parents consented as well as the child it would be legal.

I think you have to be 16 for your parents to be able to consent for you.

Originally posted by tyralpha:

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Can I marry a 12 yr old (for arguments sake)

No, a 12 year old cannot give consent. Marriage is a legally binding contract, something a minor cannot enter.

If the parents consented as well as the child it would be legal.

No, it wouldn’t. While the laws do vary a bit state to state, minors cannot enter a legally binding contract without the express authority of the state (which would not be granted).

In short, the people voted democratically to add an amendment to the Republic of California’s state constitution which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The S.C. of Cali. decided 6-1 that it was constitutional, but also stated that homosexual “marriages” performed before the passing of the Prop. 8 were still legal. It’s a win for the voters, but also a win for those who had already gotten “married”.

That being said, all the hoopla about this being about hate against homosexuals and the like is nonsense. Marriage is not a right as defined by the U.S. Constitution. It is, and should be considered a privilege. Even the African-Americans are appalled that the homosexuals are claiming this is a civil rights issue akin to the marches of the 1960’s. It is nothing of the sort. It’s a group of people who are trying to force an immoral issue on the rest of America.

The irony is that the homosexual groups were saying that the S.C. of Cali. lost their moral compass. Ironic, indeed.

Marriage is not a right as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court disagrees. See Loving v. Virginia. Or do you think Miscegenation is cool and we should go back to banning interracial marriages?

To quote the ruling:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Even the African-Americans are appalled that the homosexuals are claiming this is a civil rights issue akin to the marches of the 1960’s.

Yeah, and the Irish were appalled at the filthy coolies during the Yellow scare of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, never mind that the Irish had it just as bad a few decades before. What the hell does that prove, beyond the fact that Americans tend to be a bit shortsighted when it comes to giving a group its rights?

It is nothing of the sort. It’s a group of people who are trying to force an immoral issue on the rest of America.

Again, what does your morality have to do with the law. to go back to Miscegenation, it was once argued that interracial marriage was an affront to God and morality. If you can accept that, why can’t you at least be open to accept others? Your ‘morality’ seems to involve squandering the rights of others under the guise of righteousness, which I find quite morally reprehensible.

Unfortunelty, The person I agree with most here is Carados. Why shouldn’t gays aloud to marry? They both consent to it and they love each other. What would you prefer? The happy gays or the nasty drinking couple that fight all the time? This is a great step BACKWARDS.

Originally posted by dctaco12:

Unfortunelty, The person I agree with most here is Carados. Why shouldn’t gays aloud to marry? They both consent to it and they love each other. What would you prefer? The happy gays or the nasty drinking couple that fight all the time? This is a great step BACKWARDS.

I agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry – I just also think the S.C. made the most appropriate decision, based on the views of the population of California and the laws in place.

Originally posted by Syneil:

Originally posted by dctaco12:

Unfortunelty, The person I agree with most here is Carados. Why shouldn’t gays aloud to marry? They both consent to it and they love each other. What would you prefer? The happy gays or the nasty drinking couple that fight all the time? This is a great step BACKWARDS.

I agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry – I just also think the S.C. made the most appropriate decision, based on the views of the population of California and the laws in place.

People should not have the right to take away other people’s rights while keeping their own. Doing so is about as far away from democracy as California can get. Fine: the choice reflects the majority’s opinion. So what? The majority do not get a choice in this, as the choice does not affect them. If their was going to be a vote, the only people who should have been allowed to vote on it should have been the homosexuals; it’s their issue, not anyone else’s. There shouldn’t have even been an issue about it in the first place. All this shows is that bigotry and homophobia still exists in force in America.

It’s a group of people who are trying to force an immoral issue on the rest of America.

How is equality immoral?

Fine: the choice reflects the majority’s opinion. So what?

Simple: It’s proof that the Judical Branch isn’t doing their job.

Originally posted by SithDoughnut:

Originally posted by Syneil:

Originally posted by dctaco12:

Unfortunelty, The person I agree with most here is Carados. Why shouldn’t gays aloud to marry? They both consent to it and they love each other. What would you prefer? The happy gays or the nasty drinking couple that fight all the time? This is a great step BACKWARDS.

I agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry – I just also think the S.C. made the most appropriate decision, based on the views of the population of California and the laws in place.

People should not have the right to take away other people’s rights while keeping their own. Doing so is about as far away from democracy as California can get. Fine: the choice reflects the majority’s opinion. So what? The majority do not get a choice in this, as the choice does not affect them. If their was going to be a vote, the only people who should have been allowed to vote on it should have been the homosexuals; it’s their issue, not anyone else’s. There shouldn’t have even been an issue about it in the first place. All this shows is that bigotry and homophobia still exists in force in America.

As stated before: homosexuals have the same rights by the definitions used. The definition should be changed I agree, but as it stands they are, legally, equally treated.

Originally posted by Syneil:

Originally posted by SithDoughnut:

Originally posted by Syneil:

Originally posted by dctaco12:

Unfortunelty, The person I agree with most here is Carados. Why shouldn’t gays aloud to marry? They both consent to it and they love each other. What would you prefer? The happy gays or the nasty drinking couple that fight all the time? This is a great step BACKWARDS.

I agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry – I just also think the S.C. made the most appropriate decision, based on the views of the population of California and the laws in place.

People should not have the right to take away other people’s rights while keeping their own. Doing so is about as far away from democracy as California can get. Fine: the choice reflects the majority’s opinion. So what? The majority do not get a choice in this, as the choice does not affect them. If their was going to be a vote, the only people who should have been allowed to vote on it should have been the homosexuals; it’s their issue, not anyone else’s. There shouldn’t have even been an issue about it in the first place. All this shows is that bigotry and homophobia still exists in force in America.

As stated before: homosexuals have the same rights by the definitions used. The definition should be changed I agree, but as it stands they are, legally, equally treated.

Yet they can’t get married (to each other) and therefore cannot get the benefits of marriage. I wouldn’t call that equal.

They can – to members of the opposite sex, as per the definition of marriage [edit: in that state].

Originally posted by Syneil:

They can – to members of the opposite sex, as per the definition of marriage [edit: in that state].

Woohoo circular logic

Syneil, you understand that the Supreme Courts job is not to enforce the law as it stands, but to interpret it and ensure that basic rights aren’t being violated right? You are getting your government branches mixed up. The executive is supposed to take the law at face value.

Originally posted by Syneil:

They can – to members of the opposite sex, as per the definition of marriage [edit: in that state].

A definition which is held up by an unconstitutional act. Quite simply put, the law is not democratic in the slightest, and is certainly not respecting people’s rights under the laws and constitution of the US.

I’d agree that prop 8 seems unconstitutional, but I’m not so sure that it’s undemocratic. The views of the majority of the people are being enforced, even if those views restrict freedoms.

Originally posted by Syneil:

A religion is its followers.

I do agree that the court did the right thing – which was go with the votes. I don’t agree that the votes were cast the right way, but who am I to insist my morals are better than others’? SaintAjora pointed out in another thread that the way the court ruled left the possibility for a future lift of the ban to take place – when the views of populace change. I look forward to that day.

A religion is not its followers… Common sense dictates why this is so.

Originally posted by woodythedon:

I’d agree that prop 8 seems unconstitutional, but I’m not so sure that it’s undemocratic. The views of the majority of the people are being enforced, even if those views restrict freedoms.

A democratic vote would affect everyone, not just a select group. The people of California could ban gay marriage democratically, as long as they banned marriage for everyone else. A democracy is supposed to represent everyone, and all this is doing is representing bigotry.

A democracy is not supposed to represent everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Edit: Our republic was supposed to protect the rights of minorities while pleasing as many as possible.

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

A democracy is not supposed to represent everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

From your own source:

“The “majority rule” is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the “tyranny of the majority”. An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally."

To translate for you, substantively means equally among all citizens in all respects.

Our republic was supposed to protect the rights of minorities while pleasing as many as possible.

I think it should be obvious many are not pleased nor are minority rights being protected here.