Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[quote name='blandstalker']The worst thing about this is that BigT can no longer marry Gavin Newsom.[/quote]


Which is a shame, they'd probably make a cute couple.
 
[quote name='BigT']others being forced to take pay cuts[/QUOTE]


It's a sad day when someone who makes 10 million a year now only makes 3 million :cry: :cry: :cry:
 
in about 1 hour the california courts are going to step in.

prop 8 could be overturned or it could be upheld. if it is upheld then the court has to rule on the marriages performed before prop 8 passed as to whether or not they are valid.

seems like a good time to bump the vs forums most popular thread ever.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']a good idea indeed.[/QUOTE]

hopefully after the court hands down its ruling we can argue the same things over and over for another 50 pages



the court has announced that they are upholding prop 8 and the marriages performed prior to prop 8 passing are still valid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thespamofpower']I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with these stats. Californians passed a similar law back in 2000, but this has no bearing on your argument. Many things change in 8 years. [/QUOTE]

Obviously not a whole lot has changed, because Californians still passed the same law 8 years later.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Yes they are. It's even better when they validate the reasons with the BIBLE.[/QUOTE]

yep, I have yet to hear a good reason why it should be banned.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']:'([/QUOTE]

So, go ahead. Give a valid reason? I am completely open minded..but, there has never been a valid reason. The Bible does NOT count.
 
[quote name='DJSteel']since when did separation between church and state get reversed?[/QUOTE]

When did separation between church and state ever exist?
 
[quote name='spmahn']When did separation between church and state ever exist?[/QUOTE]

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

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.
 
[quote name='DJSteel']layout your reasoning. teach me oh smart one.[/QUOTE]

Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution. The people of California voted to change their constitution, the change was put into effect, and the court did their job by upholding their state's constitution. The California Supreme Court's job is to interpret their state's constitution, not to change it.
 
But what we are asking you is WHY banning it matters to people? Who do people care so much about it, they need to ban it? That is what we are asking. THAT is what no one can ever give a good, solid, and valid answer as to why.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution. The people of California voted to change their constitution, the change was put into effect, and the court did their job by upholding their state's constitution. The California Supreme Court's job is to interpret their state's constitution, not to change it.[/QUOTE]

what does their state constitution say? please show me what they upheld.
 
The problem with majority rule is that there's always a minority. The court's job isn't to legislate, but they need to enforce equality for all. Unfortunately, I think in this case the complainants were simply making the wrong argument
 
[quote name='lordwow']The problem with majority rule is that there's always a minority. The court's job isn't to legislate, but they need to enforce equality for all. Unfortunately, I think in this case the complainants were simply making the wrong argument[/QUOTE]

The problem with majority rule is that there is to much emphasis on a large central government. If issues (such as abortion, homosexual marriages, welfare, etc) were left to individual communities (allowing them to make decisions that are better for their individual needs) instead of having decisions that are made on a large scale that leave large pockets of minorities groups feeling slighted.

[quote name='DJSteel']it's either that or the people on the Court are outdated and need to be replaced.[/QUOTE]

Now thats the spirit! If we don't like people's opinions, lets just get rid of them and replace them. You honestly don't understand how a court works. Their job isn't to change the constitution, it's to uphold it.
 
But banning 2 people from being married.. like.. isn't a big deal. It's not an issue. I can see abortion as an issue. But 2 people who want to.. live together and have a legal bond? Like..really?? Really? People actually have REASONS behind it?
 
[quote name='DJSteel']it's either that or the people on the Court are outdated and need to be replaced.[/QUOTE]

They can only rule on the argument brought before them, and again, I don't agree with the result of their decision, but I think they ruled correctly based upon the argument that was brought before them regarding constitutional amendment.

They should have argued that it was discriminatory, and they probably would have won.
 
[quote name='lilboo']But banning 2 people from being married.. like.. isn't a big deal. It's not an issue. I can see abortion as an issue. But 2 people who want to.. live together and have a legal bond? Like..really?? Really? People actually have REASONS behind it?[/QUOTE]

Your opinion is that it's fine, and another person's opinion is that it is wrong. Are either of you right or wrong? Well of course in your own head you both despise one another. The majority of people in California voted to make an amendment to their constitution to not allow same-sex marriage in their state. Obviously people are going to be upset if they are for same-sex marriage, but no one is making them stay in California. It's not like the only place they can get married is in California, no one is stopping them from getting married in Iowa. I don't understand why it's so hard to just be ok with an issue not going the way you want it and moving on. You don't always get what you want in life.
 
you just dont get it lilboo... if the gays marry theyll starting teaching kids evolution in school, people will marry sheeps, everyone will drive hybrids and well switch to communism.
 
You seem to be missing what I'm asking.
No one can give a VALID reason to why they are against it. It's not about an opinion. There HAS to be a reason behind it.

EDIT: :rofl: Ramstoria.. i know i know.. :cry:
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']The problem with majority rule is that there is to much emphasis on a large central government. If issues (such as abortion, homosexual marriages, welfare, etc) were left to individual communities (allowing them to make decisions that are better for their individual needs) instead of having decisions that are made on a large scale that leave large pockets of minorities groups feeling slighted.



Now thats the spirit! If we don't like people's opinions, lets just get rid of them and replace them. You honestly don't understand how a court works. Their job isn't to change the constitution, it's to uphold it.[/QUOTE]

they uphold the laws. I understand how it works. I think there should term limits for all these gov't positions.. you can become complacent.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Your opinion is that it's fine, and another person's opinion is that it is wrong. Are either of you right or wrong? Well of course in your own head you both despise one another. The majority of people in California voted to make an amendment to their constitution to not allow interracial marriage in their state. Obviously people are going to be upset if they are for interracial marriage, but no one is making them stay in California. It's not like the only place they can get married is in California, no one is stopping them from getting married in Iowa. I don't understand why it's so hard to just be ok with an issue not going the way you want it and moving on. You don't always get what you want in life.[/QUOTE]

Read that again how I edited it, and tell me what you think.
 
[quote name='DJSteel']they uphold the laws. I understand how it works. I think there should term limits for all these gov't positions.. you can become complacent.[/QUOTE]

It's the Constitution. How in the world do you become complacent in regards to interpreting and upholding the Constitution.

[quote name='lordwow']Read that again how I edited it, and tell me what you think.[/QUOTE]

I honestly do not care. I'm not taking either side in this entire argument, because it doesn't affect me at all.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']How in the world do you become complacent in regards to interpreting and upholding the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

You were president for the last eight years. That's how.
 
[quote name='lilboo']You seem to be missing what I'm asking.
No one can give a VALID reason to why they are against it. It's not about an opinion. There HAS to be a reason behind it.

EDIT: :rofl: Ramstoria.. i know i know.. :cry:[/QUOTE]

ok, really though. the reason is the bible, even though you say thats not a reason. people dont want the "sanctity of marriage" to be sullied by a marriage their religion doesnt condone. no common sense (and most people on this board) would say there should be a seperation of church and state and that it shouldnt be an issue. but it is an issue because when it comes to marriage and marriage licenses that line has been blurred for three centuries.
 
[quote name='Strell']You were president for the last eight years. That's how.[/QUOTE]
The President has nothing to do with a Court's interpretation of the Constitution. The President's job isn't to sit in the White House and decide if something is Constitutional or not.
 
I can understand that..but don't understand how people can think the Bible is a good reason. It's not about walking down the aisle in a church.. It's about getting a piece of paper that says "These 2 people are idiots and are spending the rest of their lives together. LOL Them."

Do they all think that marriage has to take place in a church?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']The President has nothing to do with a Court's interpretation of the Constitution. The President's job isn't to sit in the White House and decide if something is Constitutional or not.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. That's what I used to think too.

Lilboo, we've been over this: Originally marriage had nothing to do with religion, didn't take place in churches, and was little more than a business proposition. Literally. And then priests said I'M BORED and took over the whole thing, ushering in theistic imagery and pomp.

So, you know. They could get bored again and try that on something else. Like baking potatoes or some shit. Soon we will have to determine the gender of potatoes before dousing them in cheese and bacon bits, and sour cream will be outlawed because that'll look too fruity.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']ok, really though. the reason is the bible, even though you say thats not a reason..[/QUOTE]


I think we should ban all clothing made from more than 1 fabric. Its just a sin. No matter how you look at it. This is a christian nation. God clearly states its a sin. The new Testament is for the weak.
 
[quote name='lilboo']I can understand that..but don't understand how people can think the Bible is a good reason. It's not about walking down the aisle in a church.. It's about getting a piece of paper that says "These 2 people are idiots and are spending the rest of their lives together. LOL Them."

Do they all think that marriage has to take place in a church?[/QUOTE]

i know i know. but you want the reason. THAT IS the reason. no matter how absurd it seems to you, that is the reason that people get so uptight about this and the reason california shot it down twice in the last 10 years.

[quote name='homeland']I think we should ban all clothing made from more than 1 fabric. Its just a sin. No matter how you look at it. This is a christian nation. God clearly states its a sin. The new Testament is for the weak.[/QUOTE]

i see what you did there :roll:
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It's the Constitution. How in the world do you become complacent in regards to interpreting and upholding the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Because much like the Bible, the Constitution can become outdated in certain respects. If that is the case, I know it's not the Court's place to change it or make note of it, but the Senators and HOR's that have been there for 30-40 years are responsible and they have no term limits either.
 
*Sigh.* And once again, even the Bible had evidence for marriage being a transaction, as I've mentioned before. I think it was Jacob and Rachel? Hard to remember. Point being is that he worked for a wife, her father tricks him with her sister, so he works for the other and gets 'em both.

Seriously. Granted it's OT and that was originally Jewish-written, and Lewis Black will tell you that you need to talk to HIS people about those books instead of viewing it through a Christians "we didn't write the OT and instead did the Jesus Buddy chapters" lens, but still.

Point being is that if you're one of those thumpers that proudly swaggers around about how the whole thing is golden truth and infallible, then you'd recognize a drastic counterpoint to your entire argument right there in black and white. And that's not even the one I wrote in myself, where I stated that goat tastes like crap, and anyone who eats it is a heathen and must cleanse themselves with eighty punches to their genitals delivered by a kangaroo wearing boxing gloves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top