TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- The NO on Prop 8 thread....
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel It is kinda hard to give it less attention when the Mormon church alone is the single largest sponsor of the yes on 8 campaign.

By no means would I like to see it get "less attention". Would have just liked to see the other props get SOME attention from the citizenry. For that matter, I really don't think this was a result of campaigning by the Mormon church but rather the average citizen's comfort level with same-sex unions and/or opposition to gay-rights advocacy. Least we forget the majority or citizenry organizing in this country takes place in the churches regardless of denomination. I'm sure the Catholic church played just as important role, particularly here in California.

My point is more one of symantics. This proposition would have stood more of a chance of being defeated had the argument been more about opposing an ammendment to the constitution rather than advocating the recognition of same-sex marriage. Saying "NO" in an argument to allow the constitution remain unchanged would likely sit much easier in the moral conscience of the average Californian as opposed to saying "NO" in an argument to recognize same-sex marriage. This was played out as a gay-rights issue more than an issue of ammending the constitution with a definition of a "societal norm". This was not about gay-rights. This was about introducing specific definitions of any kind into the Constitution. If this were a proposition to define what constitutes an acceptable "religion", "church", "school", "family", or any other institution, it would have more likely been defeated because people are aware of the repercussions of injecting strict definitions into the documents that govern our personal freedoms.

I don't disagree with you. I really do see what you are saying, and seeing that I wish all issues got the same amount of attention I have nothing against that.

So Greg, when are you coming out of the closet?


Been way too long, hope you're doing fine.

I think if this comes up again in 2012, it'll pass then.

In 2000, it was only expected that 25% of Californians would support gay marraige. Going into this election with Prop 8, they said their numbers showed another 21%-25% of Californians now support gay marraige.

I heard this on KRON4 when they were interview some top person from the No on 8 campaign. They knew it would be real close with a good chance of not winning. And going by their numbers coming into the election, 48% saying NO to Prop 8 falls right in line with their numbers.

But they are still very happy to see how much support has grown for gay marraige over the last eight years. A 23% jump on such a big issue. And if the trend continues, it'll easily pass in 2012.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveT I think if this comes up again in 2012, it'll pass then. In 2000, it was only expected that 25% of Californians would support gay marraige. Going into this election with Prop 8, they said their numbers showed another 21%-25% of Californians now support gay marraige. I heard this on KRON4 when they were interview some top person from the No on 8 campaign. They knew it would be real close with a good chance of not winning. And going by their numbers coming into the election, 48% saying NO to Prop 8 falls right in line with their numbers. But they are still very happy to see how much support has grown for gay marraige over the last eight years. A 23% jump on such a big issue. And if the trend continues, it'll easily pass in 2012.

What are they going to pass? A constitutional amendment that repeals it?

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel What are they going to pass? A constitutional amendment that repeals it?

Exactly! The problem is this prop was taking an extreme approach. To change the Cali Constitution! Once changed, its not so easy to change it back. This issue is faaaaaar from over. I think its really just begun. A lawsuit has already been filled because the petitions signed to get prop 8 on the ballot contained different information than what was on the actual prop. They misled people to get the prop voted on, which means it never even should have been on the ballot. And then they misled people to get it passed. I'm telling you, this will not be done until it makes it through the National Supreme Court. Just the tip of the iceberg.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Reese Exactly! The problem is this prop was taking an extreme approach. To change the Cali Constitution! Once changed, its not so easy to change it back. This issue is faaaaaar from over. I think its really just begun. A lawsuit has already been filled because the petitions signed to get prop 8 on the ballot contained different information than what was on the actual prop. They misled people to get the prop voted on, which means it never even should have been on the ballot. And then they misled people to get it passed. I'm telling you, this will not be done until it makes it through the National Supreme Court. Just the tip of the iceberg.

The sad thing is there is still a pretty good chance the supreme court won't hear it or rules with the homophobic view.

The Prejudices of a Majority Should not Dictate the LIves of a law-abiding Minority..

quote:

Originally posted by DaveT I think if this comes up again in 2012, it'll pass then. they said their numbers showed another 21%-25% of Californians now support gay marriage.

I think so too, but if I'm not mistaken, about 48% voted no - wouldn't that mean that 48% "of Californias now support gay marriage" and not "21%-25%?

48% was darn close - I think a Constitution, by definition should be a solid instrument of the law which should not be easily changed by the prejudices and biases of an ill-educated "majority". This nation was founded on the principle that minorities (in particular, it started with minority religions such as the MORMONS) should be protected by the majority. If the majority of Christian Fundamentalist could have voted away the rights of Mormons to practice their minority religion in the 1840s, I think they would have certainly done so.

I'm writing my Congress people and Senators to advocate for a 2/3 majority in changing our states Constitution, realizing that 2/3 may even be too few in some cases, considering the religious tyranny that often attempts to intrude on the private lives of consenting adults. Government (the collective) has no business in the personal psychology and sociology of equality - whether it be in name (marriage) or not (the "less equal" notion of domestic partnership).

Thomas Jefferson sated that NO laws should be passed unless they are proved to show harm to other people. NONheterosexual marriage in no way harms anyone else and the "YES" fanatics were not able to prove so before the California Supreme court, despite being given months to make their case.

It's hypocritical that so many (not all) "conservative Christians" often claim they don't want "big government" - unless government bows down to their biases and prejudices. True morality and freedom can only come when the prejudices of a majority no longer dictates (as in dictatorships) the lives of law-abiding minorities.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel The sad thing is there is still a pretty good chance the supreme court won't hear it or rules with the homophobic view.

I don't think that'll happen. It's too serious of an issue. And the simple fact is it's "unconstitutional." The Supreme Courts are in place just for these kind of issues. The problem is seeing cow the rest of the country reacts to this once it gets close to them. There were many other states with gay marrige props. Needless to say, Cali had the closest vote.

Check em out http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/re...allot.measures/

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Reese I don't think that'll happen. It's too serious of an issue. And the simple fact is it's "unconstitutional." The Supreme Courts are in place just for these kind of issues. The problem is seeing cow the rest of the country reacts to this once it gets close to them. There were many other states with gay marrige props. Needless to say, Cali had the closest vote. Check em out http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/re...allot.measures/

I was looking at all the states earlier. There are a lot of states that already banned it previously.

And the reason I see that it may still not pass the supreme court is because of the conservatives that Bush appointed.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel I was looking at all the states earlier. There are a lot of states that already banned it previously. And the reason I see that it may still not pass the supreme court is because of the conservatives that Bush appointed.

My girlfriend literally just brought up that point. We'll just have to see how heated this gets once it really breaks out of Cali.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Reese My girlfriend literally just brought up that point. We'll just have to see how heated this gets once it really breaks out of Cali.

Exactly. It is a concern of mine, but we will see how it all plays out.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Reese Exactly! The problem is this prop was taking an extreme approach. To change the Cali Constitution! Once changed, its not so easy to change it back. This issue is faaaaaar from over. I think its really just begun. A lawsuit has already been filled because the petitions signed to get prop 8 on the ballot contained different information than what was on the actual prop. They misled people to get the prop voted on, which means it never even should have been on the ballot. And then they misled people to get it passed. I'm telling you, this will not be done until it makes it through the National Supreme Court. Just the tip of the iceberg.

Doubt it will go anywhere. I don't think there was a need for any misleading information. Compared to all other propositions this contained the most simple and straight-forward text. Less than 10 lines of text really. Very simple argument unless the argument is one of "intent". Does the "intent" of this ammendment violate the inherent ideals of equality set forth in the constitution.

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the �California Marriage
Protection Act.�
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

That is the entire proposition, see pg. 128 of the Official Voter Information Guide.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/te...-laws.pdf#prop8



Here is the text contained in Article II, section 8 of the California Constitution. Pretty straigh-forward.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.
(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to
have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the
case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the
Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the
last gubernatorial election.
(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the
next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at
any special statewide election held prior to that general election.
The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.

(d) An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not
be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
(e) An initiative measure may not include or exclude any political
subdivision of the State from the application or effect of its
provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative
measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes
in favor of the measure, by the electors of that political
subdivision.
(f) An initiative measure may not contain alternative or
cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions would
become law depending upon the casting of a specified percentage of
votes for or against the measure.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

basically, they would have had to have a petition signed by 8 percent of the total number of voters that voted for all California gubernatorial candidates in the last election. That's a huge number of signatures just to get it on the ballot.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel It is kinda hard to give it less attention when the Mormon church alone is the single largest sponsor of the yes on 8 campaign.

you really do hate the mormon church dont you.

Prop 8 is more about linguistics then affording rights to gay couples. If it were really a rights issue, why not isolate the rights that are afforded to a married couple that are not given to those in a civil union and sort that out? That way both parties are happy. I am still not clear what those rights are, all i have heard is a small tax break on health care programs distributed by employers.

NO on 8 has misled you that this is about getting equal rights, which it isnt really. Other then the right to get "married" which is just a term and thus a matter of linguistics. Its my understanding that the underlying issue here is its about gaining power for the gay community, in order to promote their way of life in such places as schools, public and private, churches, etc. No on 8 should have focused on the fact that this is amending the constitution, which i think many americans are often hesitant to do. I think it would have failed if they went a different direction with it.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen you really do hate the mormon church dont you.

I grew up Mormon. I know too much about the way they work. Knowing this and seeing this, and being able to speak on behalf as a former member makes me hate them? I don't hate them. My best friends family is Mormon and so are others I know. That is their prerogative. I know I may come off that way, but people are really quite oblivious to how the church does push stuff like this.

quote:

NO on 8 has misled you that this is about getting equal rights, which it isnt really. Other then the right to get "married" which is just a term and thus a matter of linguistics. Its my understanding that the underlying issue here is its about gaining power for the gay community, in order to promote their way of life in such places as schools, public and private, churches, etc. No on 8 should have focused on the fact that this is amending the constitution, which i think many americans are often hesitant to do. I think it would have failed if they went a different direction with it.

As my friend put it so eloquently, If you grant a right to one group, you must grant the same right equally to all groups regardless of any laws granting "equal" rights.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen NO on 8 has misled you that this is about getting equal rights, which it isnt really. Other then the right to get "married" which is just a term and thus a matter of linguistics. Its my understanding that the underlying issue here is its about gaining power for the gay community, in order to promote their way of life in such places as schools, public and private, churches, etc. No on 8 should have focused on the fact that this is amending the constitution, which i think many americans are often hesitant to do. I think it would have failed if they went a different direction with it.

oh wow. you have it all wrong. you must be listening to your church because this has nothing to do with churchs/schools/etc...this has everything to do a minority group wanting equality.

more importantly, as you are not directly affected by this, it seems like YOU are the one having the power issue.

Unfortunately, this shows that some people still have strong morals about their views on marriage.
Would you consider those people "sick fucks", miguided,ignorant or true to their views?

Of course many people want equality, I supported NO on 8.

How many groups/religion/etc supported YES vs. NO?
There was a large hispanic push for "YES"

These people are old school and their ideas should be put out to pasture. Like above though, there are still lots of old people.

The following is a note from Lorri L. Jean, head of the Gay & Lesbian Center in Los Angeles:

Rally Tonight!!

Please join us tonight at 7 p.m. for a rally in West Hollywood on San Vicente Blvd, between Melrose Ave. and Santa Monica Blvd.

Sadly, fueled by misinformation, distortions and lies, millions of voters went to the polls yesterday and said YES to bigotry, YES to discrimination, YES to second-class status for same-sex couples.

As of this morning, more people had voted for Proposition 8 than against it. The Secretary of State�s office has yet to call the race as millions of votes remain to be counted. Thus, the No on 8 Campaign is not calling the race.

While we do not know what the exact margin will be, we do know that millions of people voted to eliminate the fundamental rights of their neighbors, colleagues, families and friends.

Yesterday will be judged as a shameful chapter in the history of our state and our nation. While hope overcame fear in the Presidential election, fear reigned supreme for millions of California voters.

The Yes campaign engaged in the most immoral and reprehensible tactics imaginable. They took $40 million dollars--most of it funded by Mormons at the direction of their Church President--and subjected people in our state to a constant barrage of lies and distortions. The Mormon Church was not alone, however, organizations like Focus on the Family, the Knights of Columbus, and the American Family Association also supported this hateful initiative.

They couldn�t win with the truth so they resorted to something far more sinister. They even stooped so low as to distribute a campaign mailer fraudulently suggesting that President-elect Obama supported their efforts, when they knew for a fact that he had come out in opposition to Proposition 8.

That is clearly the only way these anti-gay extremists could advance their agenda of discrimination and exclusion. Most fair-minded people find such tactics and concepts absolutely repugnant and more would have voted �no� were it not for such a deceptive campaign of scare tactics and lies.

I am angry and enormously sad. And I�ll have more to say once the No on 8 Campaign calls this race. For now, our legal eagles have filed suit against Proposition 8, which should never have been on the ballot in the first place.

Amidst all the emotions I am feeling today, I am taking heart in the fact that no matter the result of this particular battle, the war is far from over. Of one thing I am certain, the freedom to marry will one day be the law of the land. Our success is inevitable in time. We will work ceaselessly to see that this day comes as soon as humanly possible.

Not to mention that Prop 8 was the most expensive measure in history, the $80M spent to push for and defend against discrimination could have cured a disease or fed a small country for a year!

It's sickening, really...last time I checked we were all part of the Human race!

Don: One thing I always forget to bring up that I just remembered. The tax benefit thing. Is that on a state or national level? If national, that is not something that prop 8 would have addressed.

National, based on DOMA passed by Clinton in 1996, so would need to be addressed at the federal level...although at the federal level, this is deemed an issue for the states!

quote:

Originally posted by in2muzikk National, based on DOMA passed by Clinton in 1996, so would need to be addressed at the federal level...although at the federal level, this is deemed an issue for the states!

It isn't deemed a state issue since it has already been defined.

This is unfortunate though no matter what.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen you really do hate the mormon church dont you.

We may not be created equal - but we are all one family and deserve equal rights.

It is sad what so-called "Christians" will do when some of their own children are getting pregnant out of wedlock (Sarah Palin's)or catching HIV/AIDS because they are under the delusion that it's a "gay disease". Worldwide the majority of carriers have always been heterosexual.

But we who believe in equality, fairness and keeping mob rule from legislating our private lives must focus on the good progress we are making and work on the bad. Democrats have taken the White House, the Senate and Congress for many good reasons, and we must see the glass as half full instead of half empty while still working to fill it.

For the fist time in history, a President mentioned "Gay" in an acceptance speech and in terms of being American. Obama correctly asserted that we are neither Red or Blue Americans, neither black nor white Americans, neither straight or gay Americans. To put it a bit differently, we are all simply humans first, second and third - meaning our differences come in a distant, metaphorical fourth compared to our many similarities.

We all have the same emotions and fears, it's only our experiences and biology that make us deal with such feelings in different ways. Above that, we are simply humans and all part of the global family. If we go far back enough, we are all related and I've been saying this since childhood. Recently DNA and breakthroughs in genetics have confirmed that this is biologically true.

if jesus was alive today there's one thing he wouldn't be: a christian.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.