California Ghey Marriage

[CobraEd]

I have a real question:

If there is now a constitutional amendment passed in California to ban all ghey marriages, . . . . then does that mean that the marriages that already took place are now Null and Void ???

Enquiring minds want to know


.

[wtm442]

Naaaa. Now they call all move to Massachusetts. OMG no.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by CobraEd

I have a real question:

If there is now a constitutional amendment passed in California to ban all ghey marriages, . . . . then does that mean that the marriages that already took place are now Null and Void ???

Enquiring minds want to know


.

The CA AG said no. All existing marriages were conducted lawfully.

Steve

[Fred Douglass]

This morning on WTKK (96.9 FM near Bahstin) Michael Graham pointed out that O'Bama got 52% of the popular vote and that constituted a "landslide" and a "mandate". Whereas Californica voted to say that the latter ("mandates" ar-ar) could not lead to gay marriages---again by 52% margin---which was defined as a "razor-thin" margin! Isn't 52 still 52, even if it follows 69? Ooooooooh lapse of taste, sorry!


Ar-ooooooodle!

[SP01715]

Being a California resident I voted for prop 8 which would ban gay marriage. If you look at it by county the support for prop 8 outside liberal Los Angeles and San Francisco was fairly strong. That said, we have voted for a lot of things in the past that the court has overturned. This proposition though was a result of the California Supreme Court ruling 6 months ago that made gay marriage legal. Seems like a vicious circle. The ACLU has already filed a lawsuit so the fight is not over.

[1ntCobra]

Hmm, some group in California puts something to a vote that essentially discriminates against a minority group and you think that is going to hold up?

My marriage is inter-racial. I bet if that came up as an item to vote on back in the 1950's the vote could have outlawed that as well.

The people who voted for this sort of stuff are actually fighting to limit the personal freedoms of others. That seems downright unpatriotic it me.

These people need to complain to the heads of their religions about disallowing gay marriage, not to the government. We have separation of Church and State here, unlike say some of those Middle Eastern countries.

[Joe Wicked]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

Hmm, some group in California puts something to a vote that essentially discriminates against a minority group and you think that is going to hold up?

My marriage is inter-racial. I bet if that came up as an item to vote on back in the 1950's the vote could have outlawed that as well.

The people who voted for this sort of stuff are actually fighting to limit the personal freedoms of others. That seems downright unpatriotic it me.

These people need to complain to the heads of their religions about disallowing gay marriage, not to the government. We have separation of Church and State here, unlike say some of those Middle Eastern countries.

My marriage is also interracial and I feel the same way as you. I also see it as limiting others personal freedoms, and agree that it is a religious issue, not a State issue. Unfortunately MOST of our laws are based on religion so there is not nor has there ever been a complete separation of Church and State. People have made the laws as they feel they should be, and a majority of those people believed it should be as the Church said. They actually believe they are helping by forcing it. By making it against the law, if you follow the law, you will get into heaven. Others just feel they know best and want to run your life. Here I cannot buy beer on Sunday before 1 PM. No liquor at all on Sunday. Why Sunday and not Monday? Only reason would be a religious one (You should be in church instead of drinking). Used to be against the law for a car dealership to be open on Sunday. When enough people complained about it, it was changed to they must be closed 1 weekend day or pay a fine. Some choose to pay the fine to be open as they sell enough cars to cover it and still make a profit.

[J. T. Toad]

Shouldn't polygamy be legal then?

What about pedophilism?

Why legislate morality at all?

Have their "rights" actually been hindered without the "certificate" of marriage?

Personally, I can't understand why they would want the extra tax burden unless they solely want to subvert the religious beliefs in marriage in the first place.

It's a semantic argument which has dire legal consequences. It'll be overturned just for the way the prop. was written. My apologies to Jamo.

[Jamo]

Why the apology? I didn't write the damn thing. I married interracially too...married one of them there white people. She can't skip rocks, play basketball and hates fried chicken.

One of the "No on 8" ads hit home here in Fresno. Reminded folks about how the Japanese-Americans were treated during WWII, and how Armenians were not allowed to buy houses or property during the early 20th Century. Now, WTF that has to do with bumbuggering, I have no clue, but I have been torn on this issue for quite awhile.

The logical attorney in me says we need to get the hell out of folks bedrooms and not legislate whether someone ought to be getting a beard burn when they get a BJ...not to mention that insurance policies and retirement plan documents still have clauses in them refering to "marriage" and don't acknowledge civil unions, not to mention the hell same-sex folks go through in intestate situations (no wills for you folks that don't stay up nights reading law books).

On the other hand, I'm not sure I want my grandson reading about little Johnny and his two dads when he starts school.

Not really a church-state situation. Folks are concerned with the morality of civilization despite not being religious.

In any event, I voted on the issue...and I'm still not sure I voted correctly.

[Sharroll Celby]

The logical attorney in you (admittedly, a bad vision!) is right on this one!

[J. T. Toad]

I was just trying to be preemptive, that way, hopefully, avoiding any written lashings.

"From our perspective...we just sit back and enjoy laymen making a$$es out of themselves by offering up assinine legal opinions."

[Jamo]

LMFAO...me thinks you haven't been guilty of that.

[Fred Douglass]

...we married interspecially----both our wives are modern homo sapiens sapiens!!

[Slick61]

I've got to give the YesOn8 folks credit... their campaign was brilliantly conceived & executed. They were well-organized, well-mobilized, and VERY well-funded... mainly by the churches & their congregations. They were EVERYWHERE. The ads effectively preyed on peoples' fear, discomfort, and/or hatred of the ghey population. And it worked like a charm. The obvious inclusion of their children, when demonstrating on street corners, played into that fear beautifully... creating the illusion that this campaign was all about protecting the children.

The local newspaper ran an article stating that the schools do not, and would not teach marriage, sexuality, and relationships no matter which way the vote went. A co-worker of mine had his 8 year old son ask him how he was going to vote on the "ghey thing". When he asked his son where he had heard about that, he replied... "on tv" ...from the YesOn8 commercial. I found that ad completely tasteless, though it was highly effective. The YesOn8 folks also sent out mailers (I got one) stating that all the presidential and vice-presidential candidates supported Prop 8, which was false. Obama and Biden both stated that, while they personally did not believe in ghey marriage, they also did not support a constitutional ban of it. They GOT IT... they were able to remain true to their personal beliefs, yet still recognize that it was wrong to discriminate against those who believe differently.

I didn't realize the rights and freedoms of a minority could be put to a majority vote. I guess I need a remedial civics course...

I believe in the "idea" of separation of church and state, though I no longer believe it exists. I read blogs all over the web where people cited their religious beliefs as reason for voting yes on 8. I believe in their right to hold those beliefs, but I draw the line when those beliefs are forced upon others who believe differently. The argument that NoOn8 was trying to force ghey marriage on everyone else holds no water with me... they were just looking to be treated with the same dignity & respect as any other decent, tax-paying Californians. The ghey couples that I know are probably the most caring, compassionate, and non-judgemental people I've ever met- and would put most "good" Christians and Mormons to shame. The pain I've seen in their eyes from this legislated bigotry is a terrible thing to witness.

But I guess I'm naive as to how the world works. 28 states (maybe more... I've lost track) have now banned ghey marriage, so I guess I need to be re-calibrated. Someone help me understand this...

[MysteryTrain]

Everyone here has made good points and raised valid questions. If only the dem v. republican discussions were so rational. Anyway, Jamo, I felt exactly as you did. And many, many, (most) of my friends were on the other side of the fence. Ultimately, I just felt like the government shouldn't have any say-so in the matter. I too, was worried about the "teaching gay marriage" in school issue, but basically that was all generated by one teacher in Massachusetts who read a book to her class (it was not mandated by the school or school system). I concluded it was a horrible decision by one person - not quite how the Yes on 8 people portrayed it.

My wife and I had some tough times at church and with our friends over this issue, and luckily most of us have moved beyond it. But it is a very conflicting issue for someone like myself who understands that my own personal moral standard does not supersede the necessity for keeping our society's laws from infringing on the rights of people I don't agree with.

Anyway, maybe someone with more legal understanding of how these things work can answer this for me: The U.S. constitution says (14th ammendment): No state shall create or enforce any law which shall abridge the privledges or immunities of US citizens. So how is it that any of these laws across the country banning gay marriage are NOT unconstitutional? Is it just a matter of time before this is brought before the US Supreme Court? Or is this not about the US constitution? I am confused.

[Jamo]

States Rights...same Constitutional framework that gives the several states to enact and follow their own probate codes, criminal laws, contract law, etc. Unless and until there is preemption by the federal government, the States preserve these perogatives.

Thus, until the Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade, each State could do what its citizens wanted in terms of abortion. Same for gun laws, Jim Crow laws, etc.

BTW, I am one conservative Republican that voted no on 8. So far (it's only been a couple of days), I have had no tingily feelings for another man, but Freddie does interest me.

[MysteryTrain]

Why not? Freddie is hot.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Paul F]

What is the concern about teaching gay marriage?

Is it personally offensive, religiously offensive, or a fear of what your children will think/become from those teachings?

I don't have kids so I have no attachment to the point and would like to appreciate your view.

[Jamo]

You can teach about different races, national origins and religions to schoolchildren and you would be explaining about the diversity of the human race and culture.

When you teach about same-sex marriages...invariably it comes down to sex, doesn't it. Fine for high school, or possibly even junior high, but younger than that...downright questionable whether it's hetro or same-sex.

Now, some parents don't really give a flying bugger about teaching their kids a damn thing. But a huge number of us (me...three girls, and now a grandson) feel like some of this stuff ought not be thrown at kids before we've had a chance to raise them within our family's own values, whatever they might be. After that, they can be taught to understand the variables of the human condition and make their own decision.

Whether it is personally offensive, religiously offensive or whatever else is none of yours (or the State's) business quite frankly (a point of discussion, not an angry retort, my friend ).

That being said, as others have noted...the whole "protecting the kids" and "teaching it in the schools" may have been a bit oversold. But maybe, just maybe...it's what could happen. Seems to me I recall enjoying school celebrations of Halloween and Christmas growing up...and each kid's birthday usually involved your mom bringing in cupcakes for everyone. Doesn't happen much anymore...someone gets offended somehow by just about everything, and yet schools tend to open their teaching protocol to include evolution at the exclusion of religious/cultural explanations for life.

Glad you're interested not being a parent...damn hard to accept that non-parents are allowed to weigh in on such matters, but they do. A bit like a man telling a woman how to handle a pregnancy.

Regardless...I still favor doing away without discrimination.

[427 S/O]

Quote JT:

What about pedophilism?

Why legislate morality at all?.

These are the most feared consequences. Where would it stop??.

Ghey's want complete acceptance but it will never happen!, and passing a law won't change folks minds. Though slim, the majority is saying exactly that!.

Like I've said, until my dog starts smoking the neighbors dog, It'll be wrong.