|
The NO on Prop 8 thread.... (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DaveT |
I thought it was the health one, but was confused a little because the article kept saying it was voted on in June 2008....hrmmm
But then I read some article talking about San Francisco measures and talked a bit about Prop K (prostitution) and talked abotu Measure B and said it was for the BART extension, too.
I was wondering WTF that had to do with SF, since 1) it's not gonna touch this area and 2) BART is operated out of Oakland as it is.
Anyhow, it all makes sense now. lol |
|
|
| DaveT |
11:30 Prop 8 Update
All Precincts Totals
Choice Votes %
Yes 2,935,580 52.5%
No 2,653,017 47.5%
47% of precincts reporting
Updated 11/04 11:30PM |
|
|
| DJ Reese |
| I want to chime back in on this...but I'm going to wait until the vote is final. And if 8 gets passed...then I'll erupt. Although it will still have to go back to the Cali Supreme Court that shot it down once already. This is just the beginning of a long war on this even though it WAS ALREADY WON before prop 8. But I guess the first time through the courts here was just a won battle. It won't end until it gets to the national Supreme Court...but like I said...I'll get into that later. |
|
|
| DaveT |
| Oh yeah, don't forget Measure B needs 2/3rds vote to pass...so it's failing right now. |
|
|
| DaveT |
Los Angeles #s for Prop 8.
44% Reporting
MEASURE Votes Percent
8 - SAME-SEX INITIATIVE - YES 631,501 53.41
NO 550,947 46.59 |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
#1. I have heard from some people that for Prop 8 to pass, it needs only an "over 50 percent majority".
#2. Some others have stated 2/3rds.
#3. In either case, even if it does pass, it still can go back to the Supreme Court and overturned?.....or.......
#4. Since Prop 8 is about a Constitutional Amendment (?) - It would have to pass 2/3rd of the majority of the State Congress ?
What is true or false of the above? I get all kinds of conflicting answers on the internet. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
Eleven Points I made back in May, 2008 in response to a "Christian's" blog who proudly boasts of proclaiming "Athiest Bashing Week" while railing against NONheterosexuals the world over - Dinesh D'Souza
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/20...s-vs-democracy/
1.) Most "Christians" I've met can't even recite half of the Ten Commandments, none of which mentions homosexuality, but one of which states that we should "NOT work on the Sabbath". If we're going to deny two consenting adults the equal right to marry based on an ancient book of fairy tales, then we may as well deny rights for the millions of people who "WORK on the Sabbath" - and the ones who employee them (by buying from them).
2.) The bible mentions "gluttony" far more as an "abomination" than it does homosexuality. How many gluttonous Christians do we know? I know plenty, including Jerry Falwell, who's gluttony led to his heart attack, to name just one of many "Christians" who died of obesity. Isn't the body God's temple to these "Christians"?
3.) God, who allegedly is the "all-knowing all-creator", by definition created different sexual orientations, as they are found in millions of people in all cultures throughout history. There are even intersexed people found in all cultures - people BORN with BOTH male and female organs - who do the lying Christians suggest THEY have the right marry?
4.) Marriage is not just for "pro-creation". There are millions of Christian couples who either cannot or will not have children in an already growing and overpopulated world with food and clean water shortages amounting to 1.5 million deaths of children each year. There are millions of more "Christians" known as nuns and priests who will also not have children.
5.) Alexander The Great was bisexual, but mostly gay, and many famous Army Generals consider him to be the greatest General of all times. The Greek culture prospered for centuries until the Christianity was adopted by the Romans and then we saw the ushering in of the dark ages, the inquisition, witch huntings, and anyone not Christian, gay or biologically different in any way were burned at the stake or tortured and killed "in the name of god".
6.) In a democracy that respects equality, the national and State Constitutions are designed to protect minorities such as NONheterosexuals from the ignorance and emotional prejudices of the majority. When the majority tries to ram their religious beliefs down the throats of the world to support their pet prejudices, the Supreme Court has to listen to rational debate. The Supreme Court those not only protects minority religions, but minority sexual orientations.
7.) The California Supreme Court heard hours of rational argument and evidence. They listened to both sides, both pro-gay marriage and anti gay marriage. The anti gay-marriage people were asked over and over to give a compelling argument that would show that gay marriage somehow injures anyone or injures marriage as we know it. They could not come up with a compelling argument, and many of them were given the opportunity to do so. All we heard was their prejudices and their unfounded homophobia.
8.) Thomas Jefferson, the principle advocate behind the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, stated: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Gay marriage between two consenting adults was not proven to be any more harmful or injurious to any other person than heterosexual marriage.
9.) *One* of the causes of divorce is cheating, often listed as irreconcilable difference, according to a divorce attorney I know, "to save the couple from public embarrassment". With nearly a 50% divorce rate among "Christians" surely "faith" in their invisible god is not *always* stronger than the immediate need for gratification and/or health considerations.
10.) The cheating and divorces continue decade after decade, no matter how many prayers have been uttered by preachers and priests, family and friends, to keep the blessed couples together.
Studies done by Christian organizations found that the divorce rate is actually higher among Christian Fundamentalist than it is among atheist, and divorce rates are higher in the MidSouth, where NONheterosexuals are relatively closeted than divorce rates in larger where NONheterosexuality is more accepted. I'm not drawing a correlation here, but it does support the fact that HONheterosexual marriage would certainly not harm heterosexual marriage.
11.) Self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Bill O'Reilly used misleading and irrational fear-mongering by stating gay marriage will lead to polygamy and "people marrying animals." It hasn't in five countries where it's legal, nor in Massachusetts. Imagine that, using feat-bating instead of facts to limit freedom and equality - Bill O'Reilly's hypocrisy is too often the rule rather than the exception when it comes to gay bashing on religious grounds. O'Reilly was also among those Christians "baring false witness" that if we allow South Vietnam to fall to the communist, the rest of Asia would also. One act does not necessarily have to follow another, unrelated act, and in fact, often does not. |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by selfEvolution
#1. I have heard from some people that for Prop 8 to pass, it needs only an "over 50 percent majority".
#2. Some others have stated 2/3rds.
#3. In either case, even if it does pass, it still can go back to the Supreme Court and overturned?.....or.......
#4. Since Prop 8 is about a Constitutional Amendment (?) - It would have to pass 2/3rd of the majority of the State Congress ?
What is true or false of the above? I get all kinds of conflicting answers on the internet. |
#1 is correct. #4 applies to the united states constitution. |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveT
Oh yeah, don't forget Measure B needs 2/3rds vote to pass...so it's failing right now. |
it only requires a simple majority to become law. |
|
|
| DaveT |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
it only requires a simple majority to become law. |
"Special Taxes" as this one requires a 2/3rds vote in Santa Clara County.
I have heard on both KRON4 and CBS 5 tonight.
Dave |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
Found at: http://isocrat.org/blog/?p=229 ................
....."the Attorney General of California states that the marriages already enacted will remain valid. The state of CA will not be challenging our extant marriages if Prop 8 passes. Those marriages filed for but not yet solemnized in a marriage ceremony are another issue; those who have a license and have not yet had a ceremony, better be at the tuxedo rental place right now, as the amendment, if it passes, would likely take effect Wednesday. There will be a separate expensive legal battle to determine what to do with couples with the paperwork but not the ceremony.
Regardless of how the Attorney General sees Prop 8, though, there will be a legal fight for the marriages already in law. Furthermore, even among those hoping to make same-gender marriages illegal there is debate as to how it will end up (from here):
In a recent Sacramento Bee article, Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute said, “The hard-core, straight truth is that they will likely not be invalidated.” But Liberty Council founder Mathew Staver, whose group opposed the court’s ruling, insisted to the paper that the marriages “will be invalidated.”
The question will inevitably make its way to, and be answered by California’s Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. From here:
It is uncertain how or when the issue would reach the courts if Proposition 8 passes. The question could be raised in an inheritance or property dispute or even by an employer. But in any case filed in state court, the California Supreme Court, which voted 4 to 3 to give (NONheterosexuals) the right to marry, would be the final arbiter.
Opponents of Proposition 8 could also challenge the entire initiative in federal court, and the ruling there could be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the high court found the measure constitutional, the California Supreme Court would still probably determine the fate of existing marriages.
So ultimately it seems the court that upheld the equal protections guarantee in the Ca constitution for (NONheterosexual) families will decide what happens to the marriages they allowed to take place.
In the end all this mess really should (have been) one more reason to vote *NO* on Proposition 8. It will be very costly (if it passes due to *yes* votes), and not only in the ways denying same-gender marriage can be costly to a society in general. It would undeniably lead to expensive legal battles and legal chaos for thousands of real live families, parents and children, not the hypotheticals used by the proposition’s proponents.
To top it off, it would all be fought again, at great expense, in the next election cycle. (Shouldn't true "Christians" be spending their millions to feed the poor, help the homeless and protect our children from far greater threats than what two consenting adults do behind closed doors? Do they have that little faith in our children?) A Constitutional Democracy just cannot expect people to stop fighting for equal legal treatment, rights and responsibilities, for their family, right? (NONheterosexuals) won’t stop until the all sides treat the other the way they’d want to be treated.
And to top that off, there may likely be 16,000 legal marriages in California between same-sex couples, regardless of what happens tomorrow. There could be a generation of legally married gay men and women in Ca, even if the state goes through a decade or more before granting equal marriage rights to younger couples again, and they eventually will; all sides should be able to see that. Talk about legal trouble and difficulty explaining marriage law to children." |
|
|
|
|
