Prop 8

[ididntdidit 0]

Prop 8 was the decision to make gay marriage illegal in California. If you're in favor of prop 8 you are opposed to gay marriage If you oppose prop 8 then you want to legalize gay marriage I know the election for this proposition is already over but there are numerous riots happening and I wanted to know you (simtropolis members) opinions

[coolotter88 2]

I think that the people have spoken, and although this is a terrible defeat for the gays, majority rule. I'm sure they will eventually get a constitutional amendment passed to repeal prop 8, it's just that now is not the right time.

Then again, majority rule, there's minority right...

[Zelgadis 638]

Well, yes, there is majority rule. But there is also minority rights.

The reason why all developed countries have a constitution, elected representatives, and courts, is to protect people from the majority when the majority wishes to deny rights to others, among other things. If we'd let majority rule decide, and only majority rule decide, we'd have had segregation for much longer than we did. Luckily, the courts and President Johnson's Civil Rights Act put an end to all that, even though the majority weren't in favor.

Proposition 8 should never have been put to a vote.

The result of this vote is now California, along with many other states, has a constitution that says something to the effect of "all people are equal under the law, except gays." The US federal constitution is much more sensible in how it is amended. In order to change it, you don't just have "majority rule," you need a "super majority." Over the last few years, I've noticed that state constitutions are far too easy to amend. The US constitution is maddeningly difficult, but still possible, and I think that's a much better balance.

I shudder to think what would happen to any country if absolutely every issue before the government was brought to a vote and decided by a simple majority.

ISF

[patriots_1228 51]

well, IMO, if you can plea "minority rights" everytime the vote doesnt swing your way, that destroys the point of voting at all...

this is a case where you just have to wait it out and try again in a few years. I am however, suprised that this happened in Calafornia. I thought Calafornia was supposed to be one of the more liberal states in America?

[Daryn07 0]

[Marc - language]

1.) The Courts ruled that under the California Constitution, courts in CA cannot decide who can marry whom on the basis of sexual orientation AND that no religious groups or any groups of that matter can hold 'Majority-power/control' over such a ruling AS it would have taken the rights away from people, and the legislative power of the CA court system. It was Christian Riches and Churches that funded the movement that led to the drawing of the bill and the Yes on 8 group. Thus it shouldn't have been put on the ballot. (as personal beliefs about homosexuality tend to lead to discrimination- and-they tend to think that's okay- but there is financial proof of such discrimination and has been brought back to the courts.)

2.)NOTHING ABOUT TEACHING OR CHILD EDUCATION!!! This was a slander to sway voters- as was church tax. When the CA super-intendant says it's a lie- um, it's a lie.

Lastly-

3.) In order for an amendment to withdraw rights from any given group of people, major or lesser than, the bill requires a minimum of 2/3rds vote. Prop 8 went straight to the ballot and skipped the initial process. Judges are going to turn it down again because of number one and three (above blonds) and hopefully people in time will see that number two was just as much a crock of crap as VOTING to take away rights. (And to those who say thats how the USA works, Shhhh... us younger people can change that.)

-Daryn

ps, sorry if I was too forward about this issue. I had bought a ring for my now partner would have been husband. Yeah. The difference hurts. Especially when my son asks "what's the difference" So Again, sorry if I ranted too much.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 well, IMO, if you can plea "minority rights" everytime the vote doesnt swing your way, that destroys the point of voting at all...

quote>

Not every time.  Just in extreme cases, such as amending the constitution.  Go too far over to the "majority rule" side and it becomes mob rule.  Go too far over to the minority rights side, and nothing ever gets done.

Balance is important.

ISF

[WARGOD 11]

Yes on prop 8 i have a question for all of you... do you see a guy bird and another guy bird having sex or kissing each other NO! humans are the only ones in this planet that do this kind of [Marc- language] in Abu dubai if your gay they kill you! gay marriage is just wrong they should find themselves are woman if there a man or a man if there a woman

[ILL Tonkso 1,236]

Originally posted by: WARGOD Yes on prop 8 i have a question for all of you... do you see a guy bird and another guy bird having sex or kissing each other NO! humans are the only ones in this planet that do this kind of [Marc - language] in Abu dubai if your gay they kill you! gay marriage is just wrong they should find themselves are woman if there a man or a man if there a womanquote>

Actually, homosexuality in animals is just as common in the animal kingdom as it is with humans.

And plus, birds don't kiss anyway.

Do your homework

[ilikehotdogsalot 308]

Originally posted by: WARGOD Yes on prop 8 i have a question for all of you... do you see a guy bird and another guy bird having sex or kissing each other NO! humans are the only ones in this planet that do this kind of [Marc - language] in Abu dubai if your gay they kill you! gay marriage is just wrong they should find themselves are woman if there a man or a man if there a womanquote>

Well, for one thing, it's 'Abu Dhabi' and 'Dubai', second, women are encouraged to be veiled (although it's more liberal) in the UAE. Also, like Tonks said, there are a lot of homesexual animals, my friend's dog has no interest in other female dogs.

Don't be a jerk.

[Micah 16]

First, talk about the topic. Not each other.

Second, I'd just like to post this before anyone else post:

-Do not use foul or obscene language

-Do not critisize a person's sexuality, religion, race, culture, ideas, or opinions. While it is alright to disagree with somebody, it is not alright to personally attack another member.

-Displaying hatred towards a specific country, race, religion, gender, government, group, or sexuality will not be tolerated. If you do have hateful opinions, please keep them to yourself.

-Treat other people[religions, cultures, beliefs, races, etc.] the way you would want your self[religion, culture, beliefs, race, etc.] to be treated. quote>

Those are the CE rules and the people who post in here need to abide by them.

Thank you.

[Haljackey 17,302]

I won't say much about this, and I don't want to offend anyone.

In a public area, many people will often say they support gay marriage to avoid being questioned about it and whatnot. However, when it comes to a vote, when you are in that voting booth, you are in a private area. That is when their conscience will make the right choice.

[your_adress_here 11]

People that oppose other human beings because they are homosexual really sicken me.

[saltandsauce 0]

umm, i thought marriage is a religious thing and bnasically from what i've read it sounds like gays want to force churches into allowing them to get married

i thought there was a law seperating church from state so the state has no right to interfere with the church

[yoshikoroyimara 5]

and speaking of religion, recalling from my high school days in a Catholic school, the Catholic Church actually does not strongly condemn homosexuality. In fact, they allow gays/lesbians to be part of their Church...and there is this organization sponsored by the Church (can't remember what it is called) for Homosexual Catholics. So I just wondered why so many Catholics despise homosexuality, when the Magisterium and the Pope say otherwise...

...I am not a Catholic, and this is a few times when religion classes actually helped me in life...so if there is a Catholic who wants to correct me, go ahead.

[yoshikoroyimara 5]

and also, as a resident of California, I noticed that the main debate boils down to this: is marriage a right/privilege? The pro-8 say no...it's a God-gift type thing. The anti-8 say yes because under legal terms, it is a right/privilege. In other words, your RIGHT/PRIVILEGE to marry could be upheld (no clue in what circumstances...maybe when you are in prison???). Depending on what side one is on, the California Constitution may not apply:

"(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

if marriage is a right/privilege, then it must be given to all citizens of California...if it is not, then...well, the CC is irrelevant...

and also...what makes me sad is that the Mormon Church and many churches raised so much money to fight this in California...yet, they could not (for some reason) do the same to fight poverty, and other injustices...I'm not saying that they don't whatsoever...but it would be nice to see them having the same passion and effort to fight more grave issues at hand.

TO SALTANDSAUCE: don't be fooled that the Church and State are separated...if so, then why is a prayer given before every Congress meeting/session? And also, just look at the back of your cash...it's not hard to find them together in American society...there's a joke out there saying that the US of A is more religious than the Vatican City itself!

[The Bluejay 40]

"i thought there was a law seperating church from state so the state has no right to interfere with the church"

It also works the other way around: Relgion shouldn't interefere or influence laws.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce umm, i thought marriage is a religious thing and bnasically from what i've read it sounds like gays want to force churches into allowing them to get married

i thought there was a law seperating church from state so the state has no right to interfere with the churchquote>

Hence why I always say the solution to this problem is to have the state give only civil unions to all couples - gay or straight, and leave the word "marriage" in the religious institutions where it belongs.

Problem is, that isn't enough for a lot of the "George Sauros types" (as my mother would say). Because it still means gays can't get "married'. It puts them equal under the law but still not equal in the eyes of society. They do want to force churches to allow them to get married - or, more generally, they're on a crusade against the church since they recognize it as the single largest obstacle between them and being recognized as equals by society. So long as there are a lot of people who consider their lifestyle to be sinful, they are not really equal in the eyes of society.

Finally, some food for thought: the proposition may say that same sex marriage isn't allowed, but it doesn't say gays can't get married. Adam and Steve can't marry each other, but they can still go and marry women. So, technically, they have exactly the same rights under the law - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Now, I would argue that that logic is flawed since the people's desires aren't being factored in, but it is one way in which this sort of discrimination against gays is different from historical discrimination against blacks. Though, I could see plenty of people running under that logic. And I could also see it holding up in court.

[miguelkuk 109]

Personally I am strongly against Prop 8. Simply because it is a discriminatory law. Not because I support marriage, gay or straight. Most marriages end up in divorce anyway, so why bother? But if someone wants to get married then they should be allowed to do so regardless of their sexuality. There was a time when interracial marriages was seen an absurdity also. People need to evolve and not live in the middle ages nurturing bigotry. It's the 21st century for god's sake!

[patriots_1228 51]

^well, marriage in america is based of christian marriage, so don't you think the church should have some say in how we utilize its sacrement. Kinda like how studios often consult with the author when they are making a movie based off their book? [ or at least, i think they do that lol..i hope...].

you are getting confused though. The church influenced the thinking of the voters. The church themselves did not make the law. That is what seperation of church and state is. The church cant make the laws. They are allowed to influence the voters just as much as any gay rights organization. Btw Daryn, if you really want to get married, you should visit the coolest state in the world, massachusetts.

[Pinoy30 0]

Well Prop 8 will come back to be repealed, its about civil rights and not religious rights, the commercials that was shown on TV was all false advertising. Dam those mormons, and Christians. Connecticut and Massachusetts are two states are legal for gays to marry. Soon New Jersey be the next state. What happen to the West Coast???

[Lambert14 0]

Finally, some food for thought: the proposition may say that same sex marriage isn't allowed, but it doesn't say gays can't get married. Adam and Steve can't marry each other, but they can still go and marry women. So, technically, they have exactly the same rights under the law - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Now, I would argue that that logic is flawed since the people's desires aren't being factored in, but it is one way in which this sort of discrimination against gays is different from historical discrimination against blacks. Though, I could see plenty of people running under that logic. And I could also see it holding up in court.quote>

[Odainsaker 2,134]

^well, marriage in america is based of christian marriage, so don't you think the church should have some say in how we utilize its sacrement. Kinda like how studios often consult with the author when they are making a movie based off their book? [ or at least, i think they do that lol..i hope...].quote>

But then we have to ask, how are non-Christians in America legally married? My Japanese-American neighbors are Shintoist/Buddhist...how does their own marriage fall under a State legal marriage system defined by the sacraments of a Christian Church? The State is going to open a civil rights legal can-of-worms if it starts dabbling there...oh wait, too late!

So much silliness: the Crusading Gays (hide your children!) want to force our churches to perform their marriage ceremonies, therefore, we must bar them from marrying anywhere under any circumstance under penalty of law (preferably criminal law). At the same time, all those Spanish-speakers might be talking about us behind our backs or plotting Nuevo Aztlán, therefore, we must enforce English-only laws as well (because speaking about us behind our backs in Spanish should be a criminal offense!). And of course, we all know Obama wants to take away our guns and Bibles and bring Socialism (gasp, oh the horror!).  Spanish-speaking gay Buddhist Democrats militantly demanding marriage licenses in California?!?! Faithful to Arms, the Barbarians are at the Gates and the Apocalypse is Nigh!

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Problem is, that isn't enough for a lot of the "George Sauros types" (as my mother would say). Because it still means gays can't get "married'. It puts them equal under the law but still not equal in the eyes of society. They do want to force churches to allow them to get married - or, more generally, they're on a crusade against the church since they recognize it as the single largest obstacle between them and being recognized as equals by society.quote>

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that gay marriage can be argued as being a violation of the First Amendment?

[ididntdidit 0]

Well whether people recognize it or not marriage has become a secular thing and this may come as a shock but, so is Christmas! And I know it is very difficult to see that my home state of California did something like this. I THOUGHT WE WERE BETTER THAN THIS! Well what this and many other things of this nature has been a result of a horrible social gagging, a religious vomit if you will. But, there is the problem with religion... the religion itself. I don't know about you but if something comes along trying to bring people together and promote peace and salvation, why would they have to step on so many people. Well, who has seen the new film Milk?

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: yoshikoroyimara and speaking of religion, recalling from my high school days in a Catholic school, the Catholic Church actually does not strongly condemn homosexuality. In fact, they allow gays/lesbians to be part of their Church...and there is this organization sponsored by the Church (can't remember what it is called) for Homosexual Catholics. So I just wondered why so many Catholics despise homosexuality, when the Magisterium and the Pope say otherwise...

...I am not a Catholic, and this is a few times when religion classes actually helped me in life...so if there is a Catholic who wants to correct me, go ahead.quote>

 

From my understanding of Catholic theology, homosexuality in of itself is not considered a sin, simply because it's just an attraction to someone that you can't help. But if you act on it then its considered a sin. At least I think so. 

Honestly I think people should just let people get married wether they're straight or gay. It's not like any church has to condone it, no church should be forced to preform a marriage that they wouldn't otherwise accept. In my opinion, the only thing that counts in marriage is that the couple are commited. And also, with gay marriages there would be more people to adopt children, which could mean less abortions.

[belfastuniguy 18]

umm, i thought marriage is a religious thing and bnasically from what i've read it sounds like gays want to force churches into allowing them to get married

i thought there was a law separating church from state so the state has no right to interfere with the church quote>

Think you'll find that is incorrect. Marriage is NOT a religious institution, it existed long before religion got its hands on it and forced its morals onto the service. The first ever recorded use of the word 'marriage' was in Italy I believe and curiously enough was used to describe the union of a same-sex couple, two men Strange that...isn't it?

well, IMO, if you can plea "minority rights" everytime the vote doesnt swing your way, that destroys the point of voting at all... quote>

Really? So if Americans went and voted for slavery to become legal again, that'd be ok with you. Yes I didn't think so and clearly not seeing the bigger picture.

That arguement is entirely flawed when its in relation to the civil rights of a minority population, something America should be well aware of as you denied rights to blacks for a long time, so would seem some people there have little issue with denying rights to another minority.

Firstly its my understanding this vote itself was flawed as the result went against the California constitution and breached a ruling by the California Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I of course disagree with the outcome of the vote, as I have already mentioned its a flagrant disregard for the rights of the gay population who like everyone else pays their taxes and contributes to society yet people seem perfectly happy to treat them like second class citizens. Marriage is not a religious ceremony, you can have a religious marriage and I'm perfectly happy for churches to say they do not wish to marry gay men or women in their church. Though fail to see why gay men and women need to pawned off with a 'civil union' its utterly ridiculous as you can have a non-religious marriage ceremony.

Its wholly flawed logic to believe marriage is tied to religion.

People that oppose other human beings because they are homosexual really sicken me. quote>

Completely agree. No one is asking you to love gay men and have them as your best friends, but if someone is incapable of showing basic respect for others then in my opinion they don't deserve to live a modern developed society.

[fukuda 351]

Spanish-speaking gay Buddhist Democrats militantly demanding marriage licenses in California?!?! Faithful to Arms, the Barbarians are at the Gates and the Apocalypse is Nigh!quote>

Omg! We already live in the apocalypse over there then! ohnoes

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

From my understanding of Catholic theology, homosexuality in of itself is not considered a sin, simply because it's just an attraction to someone that you can't help. But if you act on it then its considered a sin. At least I think so. 

quote>

That's not solely Catholic, that is a basic Christian doctrine. The desire for a particular sin of any kind is not sin unto itself, it is the action.

The Bible says that marriage was given to all men, not just  believers. What they do with it is on their heads, and that includes heterosexual adultery.

My background with homosexuality has been covered so I won't go into it again. What I will say is that, the states have complete control over marriage laws, not the Federal government; so even the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction to uphold or strike down the Prop in question. As this was an Amendment, it will likely have to stand regardless of those who think that rioting will solve anything or sway the public to their side. A court striking this down would be an example of judicial activism, which is wrong in any context; even if you agree with it.

Be careful what you wish for, the end result of all this will set a precedent that may come back and bite you in the ass much later, on an entirely different matter. Abortion, slavery, whatever the context... courts striking down the will of the people is a very dangerous slippery slope that threatens the very fabric of American culture and Constitutional law. Just because you may want things a certain way on this doesn't mean then that you won't be on the losing side of judicial activism on something even more important later. Judges are the least accountable of all of our gatekeepers, and precedent is the hardest to overturn.

Marriage is a state's rights issue. Don't like California's law on it? There are other states that have a different set of laws. Before some of you go off the deep end with hatred for the 'Religious Right', keep in mind that you may just want nothing more than what some of them want... complete control over the law, and to hell with anyone else's ideas. That is hypocrisy, and even hypocrisy can be framed in an 'it's my rights' argument.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hym

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that gay marriage can be argued as being a violation of the First Amendment?quote>

No.

Thing is, the first amendments says congress can't pass any laws establishing religion, i.e., they can't require nor forbid any religious practice by law. The words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the constitution. It can be argued that they are implied in prohibiting establishment of religion, but it's hard to say whether or not our founding fathers actually intended that.

Even then, though, it's not specifically gay marriage that would violate separation of church and state, it's "marriage" being used as a legal term at all (see above post).

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

From my understanding of Catholic theology, homosexuality in of itself is not considered a sin, simply because it's just an attraction to someone that you can't help. But if you act on it then its considered a sin. At least I think so.quote>

Yeah, that's pretty much it. The whole "homosexuality is a choice, if you think you're gay you need to change and go straight" is pretty much an evangelical thing. But they make the most noise and so people who don't know any better generalize it to all Christians.

It's not like any church has to condone it, no church should be forced to preform a marriage that they wouldn't otherwise accept.quote>

Well, therein lies the problem. If the state recognizes gay "marriage", a gay couple could file a lawsuit against the church saying that the church us illegally discriminating against them by refusing to marry them - and, legally, they'd have a valid argument and the state could then end up requiring the church to either perform gay marriages or have it's license to perform them revoked.

Don't think it could happen? In Connecticut, something like that already has happened. Someone took Catholic hospitals to court since they wouldn't provide the morning after pill to rape victims (since the church opposes abortion). The court ruled that the Catholic hospitals had to provide it. So, at least in Connecticut, there is a legal precedent of the state forcing the church to do something it opposes on the grounds of protecting people's rights.

Another argument in favor of my "civil unions for everyone" idea.

And also, with gay marriages there would be more people to adopt children, which could mean less abortions. quote>

Well, gay parenting is a seperate issue. With gay marriage you can say "well, it's their right, and so what, they're not hurting anyone". With gay parenting, you can't - psychologically, it's best for kids to grow up in a home with their biological parents (which a gay couple can't be), and for those parents to be loving and caring. So, gay parenting is bad for the children - but so is parenting by a couple that's divorced or in a less than healthy marriage.

I, personally, am not fond of gay parenting. I don't like it. It's not good for the kids. Gay "marriage", I have no objection to, but them pretending to be parents bothers me.

That said, I still think it should be legal for gay couples to adopt children. The problem here is that there's no winning - you either allow it and infringe on the kids' rights, or don't allow it and infringe on the gay couples' rights. Rather than try and decide which is more important, the thing to do is simply allow it and leave it up to the individual to make their own judgment on the matter (Libertarian thinking!).

[yoshikoroyimara 5]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Spanish-speaking gay Buddhist Democrats militantly demanding marriage licenses in California?!?! Faithful to Arms, the Barbarians are at the Gates and the Apocalypse is Nigh!quote>

Omg! We already live in the apocalypse over there then! ohnoesquote>

what does that mean?  Can't Buddhists be Democrat, gay, and spanish-speaking???  Or can't Spanish speakers be gay, Buddhist, and Democrat...or can't Democrats be gay, Buddhist, and spanish-speaking???  Apocalypse...pssshhh...for all I know...it may be the Second Coming...(and then the Apocalypse)...

and to Odainsaker...who first posted the Spanish-speaking thing...totally agree with your point....with some laughs...as a Buddhist myself...you totally destroyed his argument!  GO BUDDHA!!!