Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 56 of total 56 in this topic |
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Nov 3, 2008 - 02:53pm PT
|
Can anyone here tell me what "rights" are being violated by the passage of this proposition?
What advantage does a married couple have over Domestic Partnership in the state of California?
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 3, 2008 - 03:02pm PT
|
It is a civil right to be married?
Why then would the Supreme Court not make this decision?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
How about if we pass a law that forbids any person who voted yes on Prop 8 from referring to his or her spouse as "husband" or "wife"?Instead, they may refer to their "concubine."
However, they would have the same rights as husbands and wives, so what rights have been violated?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
" It is a civil right to be married?
Why then would the Supreme Court not make this decision?"
The California Supreme Court determined that under the California Constitution, it is a violation of civil rights to deny gays the ability to get married while allowing it for heteros.
Prop 8 would amend the California Constitution to make it state that gays cannot get married.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
For starters, there is the tax code. Proposition 8 would not change anything for Federal purposes, since the definition of married is in the US Code. But it might for CA taxes.
At the state level, marital status affects distribution of property. Again, whether the status would be recognized in another jurisdiction is a complex question.
After that there is family law with respect to custody of children, etc. Much of that lies in common law.
Probably a slew of others that lawyers could come up with.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
I'd like to know why almost every banner on the ST Forums is a 'Yes on 8' banner today. I understand how Google works, placing ads and banners according to the content of the page, but that banner is appearing consistently on forums that have nothing to do with politics.
It's really annoying, and whether it is not intended by ST or not, it casts an impression that ST has a political position on this topic.
I would strongly support an effort by ST to negotiate an arrangement with Google that screens out such politically charged and highly divisive ads and content (if such a thing is possible).
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
Gays can get married. They could always get married.
Prop 8 won't outlaw gays getting married, they'll just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
A gay guy can marry any woman he talks into marrying him, even a lesbian woman. Same rights as a straight guy has.
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
I support Gay Marriage so I am voting YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
Juan
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
The LA Times says that Prop 8 is largely funded by the Mormons. I can't say, but someone is paying for all those banner ads.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,5926932.story
No on Proposition 8
Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.
November 2, 2008
Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.
The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.
That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign's illusions fall away.
Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.
How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.
That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.
Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.
The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.
Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.
Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.
Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
"It's really annoying, and whether it is not intended by ST or not, it casts an impression that ST has a political position on this topic."
I disagree. Most people realize that the web site does not have control over and does not endorse the statements made in banner ads.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 3, 2008 - 03:21pm PT
|
apogee,
I believe the domain owners have the right to negotiate the contents of ads placed on thier websites.
If Prop 8 deminishes the ability for couples to get equal treatment in a court of law then I will vote against it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
And all I get is the following ads:
1. Subscribe to Alpinist, 33% off, get issue 25.
2. Link to some website for single hikers.
3. Asking that I buy a Ford F-150 gas guzzler.
It just ain't fair, I tell you. The electronic genies must know I'm a Canadian, and spare me the political ads.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
T*r,
we're probably closer on this than you think.
I don't give a damn who marries who or why. And I especially don't see where The Government has any moral authority to use it's force to decide who can or cannot marry.
But IF The Government IS to decide, isn't it better if it's decided by a vote of The People at large, rather than some accountable-to-nobody judge?
If you allow a judge to over-turn the vote on a proposition, it's a very small step for the same judge to decide we voted for the wrong person and over-turn all elections he doesn't personally agree with.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"It's really annoying, and whether it is not intended by ST or not, it casts an impression that ST has a political position on this topic."
"GC: I disagree. Most people realize that the web site does not have control over and does not endorse the statements made in banner ads."
I seriously doubt that most people realize this, but it would be comforting to know this if it is true.
pud: "I believe the domain owners have the right to negotiate the contents of ads placed on thier websites."
Hmm. I wonder. I'm no web-ad guru, but from what I understand the website provides the space, and Google inserts ads according to the content of the page, the user's past interests (based on similar page visits), and other considerations. It would be interesting to know just how much discretion the site owner has over the content of the banners.
|
|
Tan Slacks
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
"But IF The Government IS to decide, isn't it better if it's decided by a vote of The People at large, rather than some accountable-to-nobody judge?"
It's always difficult to have a popular vote overturned by our judiciary. But, the judicial branch of our government has equal value and should not be overlooked. Popular vote has for some a very serious downside. We do not have to go back far in history to a time when popular vote would have and did restrict the rights of many Americans. Consider for a moment that the overwhelming majority of Americans identify themselves as "Christian" If places and practices of other religions were restricted, who can or would protect the rights of these minorities? That for me, is the reason I can abide by their decisions. I will always believe that what makes America so great is her ability to see past the popular vote when a minority is threatened.
Prop 8 clearly tries to restrict access of a clear minority to a privaledge and vocabulary that is enjoyed by the majority and I can't help but feel that the prop is insprired in religion.
just my 2 cents
|
|
kelly slater
climber
|
|
nice to see supertopo supporting prop 8 in advertisement
|
|
Moof
Big Wall climber
A cube at my soul sucking job in Oregon
|
|
Out here in Orygun our company just ammended it's policy such that only married and same sex civil unions can sign up for health benefits for the significant other, BUT opposite sex civil unions are not eligible.
It's an odd result of same sex partners not having legal marriage options, so they get MORE benefits than equivalent "straight" couples. Goofy...
|
|
crusher
climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
Proposition 8, proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages.
So...change our State Constitution to deny the right of same sex couples to legally marry and enjoy the benefits of a state-licensed marriage vs. a "Domestic Partnership".
Here is a link (sorry, too much to cut and paste and still keep the format its in) - showing the differences in benefits between marriage and domestic partnership in CA.
http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm#versus
Hopefully this idiotic and hateful proposition will be roundly defeated tomorrow.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 3, 2008 - 05:13pm PT
|
Thanks crusher.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
As far as the government goes, a marriage license is the same as a driver's license. The gov can't deny gay people a driver's license so the gov can't deny them a marriage license either. People don't understand the difference between state government and their moral or religious beliefs.
It seems to me that if the amendment passed it would conflict with the equal protection clause. Can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? That would undoubtedly be litigated.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
"Prop 8 won't outlaw gays getting married, they'll just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else."
That reminds me of this quote. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread."
Remember the laws against interracial marriage? Black and whites could only marry someone of the same race, just like everyone else.
|
|
Bart Fay
Social climber
Redlands, CA
|
|
I thought that it had been established that the Feds & other states dont recognise same-sex-marriages (?)
From Crusher's link:
Marriage vs. Domestic Partnership
Marriage: Legal Status, Recognition, Portability of Rights Universally
recognized in all 50 states. Includes more than 1000 federal rights and benefits.
Legal structure in place to dissolve marriages and divide property equitably.
Dom Partnership: Not valid outside of the state that grants it. No federal protections.
Legal structure to dissolve partnership not guaranteed outside of state. May be dissolved
without court ruling under some circumstances.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
"All men are created equal" is at the very foundation of America's laws and values.
Prop 8 is a great example of where that comes in conflict with longstanding traditions and people putting their religous teaching ahead of American ideals.
All Men was originaly white male land owners, but over time All Men becomes everyone.
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
climber
mars...it's near nevada...
|
|
as a resident of Utah - I'm Disgusted with the Mormon Church here.
So Much Hate. So Much Judgment. And the complete lack of ability to think outside the herd - that terrifies me...
I've never met more 20 year old kids with 2 kids of their own - anywhere ever...yet they have the wontons to tell gays and lesbians what they can and can't do ?
Nothing is more disgusting that the Righteous imposing their values on others.
Keep in mind this is the same State Congress that Will Not list marriage as the Union of ONE man and ONE woman - right ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but an amendment to define marriage in Utah to be mono and not poly was soundly defeated a few years back , no ?
|
|
Shimanilami
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
From what I see, the only objections to gay marriage are religious ones. I respect a person's right to practice his own faith, but it is not his right to have government impose his personal beliefs - especially discriminatory ones - on the rest of us. If he wants the government to get out of the business of marrying gays, then government should be out of the business of marrying straights also.
Personally, I think government should issue "civil unions" only and leave "marriage" to the Churches to hash out.
|
|
Bart Fay
Social climber
Redlands, CA
|
|
>>>the only objections to gay marriage are religious ones.
Seems to me that, from either side, its also a moral & social issue.
Which says what about your comment ?
|
|
Bart Fay
Social climber
Redlands, CA
|
|
weschrist, You do know that you can get medication in 3mos supply by mail-order, right ?
I'm ALMOST positive that not every person that disagrees with you is a religious nut.
Those people really make me uncomfortable. They're so xenophobic. snicker, snicker.
|
|
Anastasia
climber
Not here
|
|
Marriage is all about inheritance, rights to property, and who has the power of attorney if you happened to be incapacitated,/ill, etc. The saddest thing I ever saw was during a hospital visit when I witnessed a man not being allowed to see his lover because he wasn't legally a "family member."
It didn't matter that they were living together for over forty years. He had no rights. He was left to wait for his lover's nephew to show up and get him in. The sad part is that his lover died while he was waiting outside the door.
That form of injustice is evil...
AF
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
come on pmb.
The righteous impose a law against murder.
You just want to pick the ones you agree with.
NTTIAWWT.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
"especially when "marriage" can be nullified with the stroke of a pen these days."
trust me, it's harder than that, especially with all the state regs. I been there no so long ago.
If 'the damn queers' would focus more on the civil union rights and less on marriage between gays, they'd attract more support. But it just comes off as an affront to the church and forcing society to accept what they want. 'Bigoted' calfornians have already said what they thought.
It's not really a gay thang, it's more...
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10797630
Prop 8: California gay marriage fight divides LDS faithful
The church's effort against gay marriage is its most vigorous since 1970s
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Launched: 10/26/2008 10:24:20 AM MDT
PROPOSITION 8
Californians on Nov. 4 will vote on Proposition 8, which if passed, would amend the state's constitution to define legal marriage as between a man and a woman.
The LDS Church in a statement this summer urged members to support the ballot measure; the church since has encouraged active campaigning by members in California and until this week, Californians living in Utah and other states.
Californians Against Hate, a group opposed to Proposition 8, claims that 59,000 Mormons have contributed more than $19.15 million to the Yes on 8 campaign.
The thought of going to church in her southern California LDS ward makes Carol Oldham cry. She can't face one more sermon against same-sex marriage. She can't tolerate the glares at the rainbow pin on her lapel.
Oldham, a lifelong Mormon, is troubled by her church's zeal in supporting a California ballot initiative that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. She feels the church is bringing politics into her sanctuary.
"It has tainted everything for me," Oldham said, choking up during a telephone interview. "I am afraid to go there and hear people say mean things about gay people. I am in mourning. I don't know how long I can last."
The LDS Church's campaign to pass Proposition 8 represents its most vigorous and widespread political involvement since the late 1970s, when it helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. It even departs from earlier efforts on behalf of traditional marriage, in which members felt more free to decide their level of involvement.
This time, LDS leaders have tapped every resource, including the church's built-in phone trees, e-mail lists and members' willingness to volunteer and donate money. Many California members consider it a directive from God and have pressured others to participate. Some leaders and members see it as a test of faith and loyalty.
Those who disagree with the campaign say they feel unwelcome in wards that have divided along political lines. Some are avoiding services until after the election; others have reluctantly resigned. Even some who favor the ballot measure are troubled by their church's zeal in the matter.
"I do expect the church to face a high cost - both externally and internally - for its prominent part in the campaign," said LDS sociologist and Proposition 8 supporter Armand Mauss of Irvine, Calif. He believes church leaders feel a "prophetic imperative" to speak out against gay marriage.
"The internal cost will consist of ruptured relationships between and among LDS members of opposing positions, sometimes by friends of long standing and equally strong records of church activity," Mauss said. "In some cases, it will result in disaffection and disaffiliation from the church because of the ways in which their dissent has been handled by local leaders."
Robert Rees, a former LDS bishop in California, says he has not witnessed this much divisiveness in the church over a political issue in the last 50 years.
Whatever the vote's outcome, Rees says, "it will take considerable humility, charity and forgiveness to heal the wounds caused by this initiative."
Getting involved
Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue without facing any sanction, said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy. "We love them and bear them no ill will."
Still, he emphasized that most Mormons in California support the church's efforts on behalf of the initiative.
"Our doctrine affirms that marriage is important to Heavenly Father's plan of action on Earth," he said. "It is the center of religion. We also believe [traditional] marriage is good for society."
In 1999, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joined other churches in California to promote Proposition 22, which also prohibited gay marriage. Mormons canvassed their neighborhoods and completed other assignments in support of the initiative, which passed. The California Supreme Court overturned it in May, however, and the move to up the ante with a constitutional amendment took hold.
At that time, Catholic Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco wrote LDS President Thomas S. Monson enlisting LDS support for the amendment. Niederauer had a good relationship with LDS leaders developed during his 11 years as bishop of Salt Lake City, and Latter-day Saints enthusiastically jumped on board.
The LDS First Presidency announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every Mormon congregation. Since then, California LDS leaders have prompted members to sign up volunteers, raise money, pass out brochures produced by outsiders and distribute lawn signs and bumper stickers. Bishops have devoted whole Sunday school classes and the weekly Relief Society and priesthood meetings to outlining arguments against same-sex marriage. Some have pointedly asked members for hefty financial donations, based on tithing. Others have even asked members to stand or raise their hands to publicly indicate their support.
Gary Lawrence, writing in the online Meridian Magazine, compared opponents of Proposition 8 to those who sided with Lucifer against Jesus in the pre-mortal existence. Others have questioned such members' faith and religious commitment, accusing them of undermining the prophet.
Literature written by Proposition 8 proponents is freely distributed in Mormon wards, giving the impression the church approves it, but much of it is "misinformation," said Morris Thurston, an LDS attorney in Orange County.
Thurston has circulated a point-by-point refutation to an anonymously authored document that has been widely disseminated by Mormons, "Six Consequences . . . If Proposition 8 Fails." Thurston argues that most of its arguments are either untrue or misleading.
He welcomes critiques of his analysis, but some have been hostile and many question his motives.
"I feel like I am entitled to my opinions, especially when they involve legal matters," Thurston said, "and I don't think I should be compared to Satan's minions."
Thurston noted that the intolerance of contrary opinion seems mostly to come from some California leaders and members. "The general church authorities I have spoken to have been understanding and compassionate," he said. "They counsel respect and civility toward those who may disagree with the church's position."
Not alone
Many opponents choose to keep quiet at church, while seeking kindred spirits online. Several Web sites have emerged, including Mormonsformarriage.org, which give participants a chance to tell their stories, share their perspectives on the measure and swap information.
"We wanted to provide information and fact check the claims, and we wanted it to be provided by people who are still active and involved," said Laura Compton, one of the site's managers. "We get between 400 and 800 hits per day."
Compton's views are well known in her LDS ward, but she and her husband, LDS writer Todd Compton, have not been pressured at all. Their leaders have done a good job, she said, of keeping politics out of church.
She knows, though, that the conflict has taken its toll on California Latter-day Saints.
"Our wards are falling apart," Compton said. "But we still have to sit next to each other after the election."
It's especially painful for Mormon gays.
"How is the church going to minister to them when such operations are guaranteed to alienate them and their families?" Thurston asked. "Most of the gay members were orthodox Latter-day Saints in their teens and many went on missions. But eventually they found there was no place in the church for them and they went elsewhere."
pstack@sltrib.com
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
climber
mars...it's near nevada...
|
|
i think it is very important to deny people the same rights you allow others bases on their lifestyle decision and how your imaginary friends feel about it...
me - i believe in a higher power. i have a book that proves it. he fights for truth and good and wants us all to banish evil with compassion and love...and that man is...
...Superman
-The Good Reverend PMB
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes yes, Superman.
The supreme being is Superman, yes.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
somewhere without avatars.........
|
|
"Anastasia, I agree that civil unions should include those 'death partner' rights. But still call it a civil union...now with more 'inclusiveness' and newer rights."
Which is total BS. The people harping about not calling it "marriage" should be reminded that church and state are supposed to be separate. Using your view, in a heartbeat, I'd vote to have the word "marriage" removed from all laws and govt and simply have everyone in a legally binding civil union. If you want to be married, go to church.
Regardless, no matter how you look at the proposition, as it sits, it's discriminatory, bigoted BS.
edit: I especially like the propaganda ads being displayed on ST... You know, the ones that are absolute lies? "At least they agree on something..."
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
Well, I just got back from the polls. Since I support Gay Marriage I voted YES.
Juan
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
"the damn queers"
Is that really how you think of gay people, bluering?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
"You know, the ones that are absolute lies? "At least they agree on something...""
Those are true. Do you remember what Palin and Biden said about their candidate's positions on this at the VP debate.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
somewhere without avatars.........
|
|
It doesn't really matter what Palin and Biden said - While Obama does not support gay marriage, he is opposed to Prop 8 and has stated such time and time again. Again, propaganda. The ad portrays that Obama is in support of prop 8, which is not true.
|
|
shenoa
Social climber
Marina, CA
|
|
[click]
[click]
[click]
Every time I see that ad, I click it. I strongly support gay rights, and understand that ST doesn't control the ads Google displays. It's a win/win situation because ST gets revenue from it, and the Prop 8 campaign has to pay.
Come on, click with me...you know you want to.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
6:15 how is this vote to retain freedom doing?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
I think it's too early to tell- polls are still open in CA- until 8 pm. I heard a report from one CA district at about 3 pm saying it was passing, but that is so early it is completely unreliable.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
This isn't looking good....
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
somewhere without avatars.........
|
|
"It's winning, 55-45 with 11 percent in. "
Apparently there are still more "homos" than sane people in Cali. Ugh! I see it being challenged and the vote overturned, regardless, as it violates people's civil rights. Eventually, people will get the inherent rights they deserve and we'll be left paying the bill for a bunch of religious fanatic's tantrum.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Currently Yes on Prop 8 holds a lead, but most of the more liberal areas of the state (SF, Santa Cruz, most of LA, others) have not been counted in- only 20% of the ballots have been counted thusfar. It ain't over yet, folks.
Edit as of 10:20: the 300,000 vote lead has shrunk to 175,000 with most of LA county and a number of other coastal areas still to be counted.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Yes on 8 has moved up 200K votes, but still too early to say for sure. Still lots of key districts to be counted, and none of the provisional ballots have been counted. It ain't over till it's over, folks.
11:30 Edit: 39% precincts reporting, 52% Yes.
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
climber
mars...it's near nevada...
|
|
score one for hatred and bigotry !
Jesus would be Soooo F*#king Proud...he was All About The Hate...
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
Gavin Newsom put this one over the top.
If he could have controlled his mouth, for just a few seconds, the Yes On 8 guys wouldn't have had that obnoxious "you're going to like it or not" sound-bite they ran over and over and this probably wouldn't have passed.
Now, Newsom gets to explain to all his gay pals they aren't married anymore because he didn't have the self-control required to keep his mouth shut.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
Bluering wrote : “Marriage has always referred to a man and a woman making a commitment to each other. It also discriminates against other types of 'unions'.”
Always? Up until not too long ago for the very Mormons who helped to support Prop 8 marriage was between a man and many women.
Most people of Indian (India) descent that I know have parents (born in the US) who had an arranged marriage. For some arranged marriage is still the norm. Ditto for Orthodox Jewry.
What always, then, are you talking about?
Chaz wrote: “ Now, Newsom gets to explain to all his gay pals they aren't married anymore because he didn't have the self-control required to keep his mouth shut.”
It’s my understanding that the proposition is not retroactive, that all those who are already married are still legally married.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
And gays can still get married, just The State Of California won't recognize them.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
While it's not looking good for No on 8 supporters, this proposition has still not been decided- the count is way too close. It's probably going to require counting lots of provisonal ballots in order to come to a clear decision. Stay tuned.
Good to hear that some of the other social agenda (defining start of life- CO) propositions in California & other states did not pass.
|
|
salad
climber
Escondido
|
|
i think the high black turnout hurt no on 8. i heard (but havent seen) that the black vote was 70-30 for 8.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
So the only way Prop 8 would have been defeated is if blacks' votes only counted 3/5 ?
|
|
| Messages 1 - 56 of total 56 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Marriage has always referred to a man and a woman making a commitment to each other. It also discriminates against other types of 'unions'. 
Let us know!