This appears to have passed. Maybe now the "gay rights" movement will finally realize that attempting to enforce their policy agenda by judicial decree is counterproductive. They'll have to try working through the democratic legislative process, instead of circumventing it.
Yes, let's celebrate reactionary mob rule, rather than the rule of law. I seriously doubt this will survive a constitutional challenge. Hey fags and dykes! Come on over to Connecticut, we'll celebrate your love and commitment, have ourselves a time, and help out a state with a struggling economy! NYC is not far, so after the party we can all go catch a good show. One thing: do you mind if I skip the ceremony, and just come out for the party? I hate weddings.
my wife and i got married before a judge so that we could have legal status in case something bad happened to one of us WHAT THE FUCK IS SO THREATENING ABOUT THAT??? [oh yeah, it's okay, one and only one of has a dick, not that that is any of anyone's business] it is exactly the same thing as gay marriage, except for the dick thing [actually my wife is kind of butch, and i'm kind of a sissy, so who knows?]
The rule of law is trashed by judicial usurpation of power. It's ludicrous to claim that the framers of any state constitution ever intended to mandate the redefinition of marriage in androgynous terms. When courts invent new constitutional doctrines out of thin air in order to enact their policy aims, they lose credibility and they undermine our system of checks and balances.
i believe that the very lack of gender terms and the parts scattered about mentioning civil rights applying equally to all would suggest to anyone with half a brain exactly that marriage is a civil right, and civil rights have no distinctions i'm no judge, but i fail to see where society falls apart over this...
btw androgyny is not mentioned in the voting rights bits or anywhere else deny gays and lesbians the vote? or just throw 'em all out of the country?
It will though, this was their last ditch effort, since the courts ruled that it was unconstitutional in California to deny gays the right to marry, this proposition adds a sentence to the Californian constitution saying that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid and recognized. But in the big picture of things this means more then face value, California is one of the most liberal states in the country and when they support something like this it becomes to the new rallying call for people against gay marriage
there's a bit of a legal glitch. gay couples married before the amendment stay married. we now have discrimination based on when you fell in love and decided to commit. Not to mention, the US constitution preëmpts the state constitution. There will surely be a constitutional test. Huck, your concept of the rule of law is, not surprisingly, a bit facile. We do have checks on both the judiciary and popular rule in this country, and we have that for a reason. Any forum members coming to CT for a gay marriage are welcome to stop by my place for a drink.
you know, we humans have something in common. When we feel helpless, we invent little superstitions and rituals that make us feel like we have some control over the world. It's actually a useful trait that can make surviving arbitrary disaster easier. Controlling others is one way to do it. Taking away the rights of gay people to marry may not actually do anything to improve the world, but it is hard for those who are fearful to resist the urge. Disappointing, but very human. I can only hope that in time our society will stop having such a dirty mind and let people live their lives as they chose.
"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. "A bill of rights [will] guard liberty against the legislative as well as the executive branches of the government." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. "Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776?
I am deeply disappointed that California Prop. 8 has passed. Especially today. I am a happily-married, heterosexual, Midwesterner who now lives in Los Angeles, but I believe the Gay Rights movement is a direct descendant of the Civil Rights Movement that cleared the way for Barack Obama to win the Presidency. If the Conservatives want small government that stays out of their lives, then they have to concede the right, as voters, to tell you who can and cannot be part of your family. When a Political movement's acts contradict its fundamental political beliefs, especially in such a mean-spirited cause, then it undermines its authority. This latest delusion of neo-conservatism cannot stand. Until it falls, entire lifetimes may be spent debating against heartless and mindless politics. What a sad waste of humanity. Peace and Love
The US Supreme Court has had ample opportunity to invent a new "constitutional right" to gay marriage, but they've wisely declined. (California is not the first state to codify the historic definition of marriage in its Constitution.) I like to think the SC seen what a disaster Roe v. Wade has been, as even Justice Ginsberg recently conceded, and is therefore more reticent to legislate from the bench. Are you implying that the 14th Amendment abolished any legal recognition of male-female distinctiveness? That's downright laughable. Here's what it actually says: Note the specific reference to males in Section 2. Also bear in mind that the 14th Amendment didn't even grant women the right to vote. That's why the 19th Amendment was needed. "Equal protection" was clearly never meant to be understood as somehow mandating androgeny.
Most of those who voted yes did so based upon religious beliefs regarding what should be recognized as marriage. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?
I agree. I think all those opposing allowing gay people rights to have rights like normal citizens now will sound a lot like the way people sounded opposing right for blacks and women 50 year ago, when you see film, read quotes, or hear tapes of them now.....like small minded little idiots. I think, similarly, most of them will be embarrassed for what they said years from now, and realize their mistake, and the rest are complete evil bigots.
California Proposition 8 states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and no one else. My information is that it has been passed by democratic vote. Now, in the phrase 'no one else', just what part of the word no don't you understand? If you want to suck cock, go ahead. Just don't ask the state to register you as married cocksuckers.
That reminds me of the punchline for a joke about how to stop a woman from doing certain things: marry her. Sorry, I just couldn't resist. lol
i am so sad about all of this. well, i'm alternating between intense sadness and being livid with anger. it just doesn't make sense at all. i really thought that the world, the us, and most of all, the (mostly) liberal state of california, were at least beyond the fucktarded idea that gays aren't people deserving of rights like everyone else. i guess i was wrong.