California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

[pyroza]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8068019.stm

Effing ridiculous. People that were married before the ban still have valid marriages, which provides a little relief, but come on.

[kevie88]

You'd think out of all the states California would be the one to allow it..

weird.

[colinxx235]

[chkolny541]

Originally posted by kevie88
You'd think out of all the states California would be the one to allow it..

weird.

agreed, if there was one wacko state to allow it, you'd think its cali. Their governor is this guy for fucks sakes

[Rat Fink]

.

[rage2]

Originally posted by pyroza
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8068019.stm

Effing ridiculous. People that were married before the ban still have valid marriages, which provides a little relief, but come on.

Why is it ridiculous? It was put to a vote, the voting public choose, and it was final. That's it. Both sides spent crazy money on campaigning it, if they thought it wasn't valid, they should've challenged prop 8 before it went to the polls instead of spending so much money and effort telling people to vote one way.

I was in San Fran during the elections, and lemme tell ya, people were passionate over prop 8. We almost got into a scrap with a guy weather to vote yes or no to prop 8.

The people of California choose, and that's that. I may not agree with the outcome, but democracy worked.

[chkolny541]

Originally posted by rage2



The people of California choose, and that's that. I may not agree with the outcome, but democracy worked.

summed it up right here

[rps13_sx]

"shame on you, shame on you!"
shame on you for being a homo.

[71car]

Whatever or not if gay people wants to marry - that's their ficking business... not my business. It's their choice of lifesytle Which is the only point I'd respect but that's it and I don't care nor ever support their decision. I don't really acknowledge their gay marriages as valid and legal anyway - period.

California is wacko enough to start every new fad everytime anytime - as far I'm concerned.

[Super_Geo]

Hard to argue against it when the majority of Californians gave their definition of marriage. Civil rights being infringed upon? I'm on the fence on this one... if they couldn't get civil unions I'd agree, but they can.

Just get a fuckin civil union and wait for the conservative dinosaurs to die out, I'm sure more than half of the younger generation would vote against Prop 8.

Personally, I think it's a brutal waste of time and money on both sides. Letting gay people get married shouldn't affect anyone else... and settling for a civil union instead of marriage isn't the end of the fucking world.

[Canmorite]

Gay marriages are obviously a harm to all marriages. Obviously.

Why the government needs to get involved in who you can legally marry is beyond me. Why do all the people who voted against gay marriage care so much about two gay people getting married?

[you&me]

Originally posted by Canmorite
Gay marriages are obviously a harm to all marriages. Obviously.

Why the government needs to get involved in who you can legally marry is beyond me. Why do all the people who voted against gay marriage care so much about two gay people getting married?

The gov't is involved because of the legal rights that marriage affords a couple.

[Super_Geo]

Originally posted by you&me


The gov't is involved because of the legal rights that marriage affords a couple.

Nope. Those rights are afforded through civil unions as well.

[stretch]

Like several other states, California allows same-sex couples to enter "domestic partnerships", which afford many of the same rights as marriage.

But activists say such partnerships are not equivalent to marriage.

Someone please correct me if I'm completely wrong (Never cared enough to look into this in detail), but from what I've shown above it appears as though gay-rights activists are simply arguing over a word: marriage.

What's their problem with having it called something else?

[Antonito]

Originally posted by stretch


Someone please correct me if I'm completely wrong (Never cared enough to look into this in detail), but from what I've shown above it appears as though gay-rights activists are simply arguing over a word: marriage.

What's their problem with having it called something else?

In terms of semantics, the phrase "separate but equal" comes to mind (as in whites and blacks water fountains, schools, etc, etc), which I'd imagine is rather insulting

Legally, civil unions are not treated equally across the country, so if someone had a marriage license in California and moved anywhere, it'd be the same no matter what. If someone has a civil union, it may or may not count for the same rights depending on the state.

Also the basic idea that, since it's separate, it would still be subject to the whims of whomever was in power at the time. The goal is to tie it to marriage completely, so that to make changes to one would mean changes to the other. If California decided to take away the benefits given to straight and gay couples just for shits and giggles, it'd be a lot harder than to take away the benefits of gay couples only.

You know why nobody puts any serious legislation forward to strip away state-recognition of all marriages? Because straight people would have a fucking aneurysm. But that's basically what happens to gay couples every election cycle, basically being at the whim of whatever is the popular idea at the time.

[B4tMan]

I applaud this democracy myth, for once.

[freshprince1]

I don't see what the big deal is.

Heaven forbid the Supreme uphold the voice of the people! (after they overturned it the first time)

[CUG]

Democracy happened, for that I'm content.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Canmorite
Why do all the people who voted against gay marriage care so much about two gay people getting married?

Because they feel that same sex marriage makes a mockery out of the definition of marriage. It makes their own marriage worthless. Most are driven by their religious beliefs and/or family values.

[Majestic12]

Issues dealing with fundamental rights should've never been put to a popular vote in the first place.