Proposition Eight

[Kean]

Last week California voted yes for Proposition Eight. Just as America took a huge step forward it took two steps back. Throughout the week there have been protests by people looking for gay marriage to brought back. Today a judge in Connetticut ruled gay marraige legal in that state. On Saturday there will be rallys in most of the major cities of America. I'm going to try and go to the rally in Boston. I'm not gay but the idea that people are being denied this basic, fundamental right boils my blood. I feel like it is going to back to the Plessy vs Ferguson ruling of equal but seperate. Just as slave marriages were illegal so too are gay marriages...how is that possible in this day and age? How cruel must it be for those who did marry while it was legal in California to be told now that their their rings, their vows, their love means nothing? It's a disgrace.

Where does everyone else fall in this deabte? What are your feelings?

 

[Blair Waldorf-Bass]

I couldn't believe it. Everyone was so excited that we were going to take it down. I was devastated and torn. Torn because while I was so grateful that Obama had won, I was in disbelief that proposition 8 had passed. I'm really hoping that we're going to be able to overturn it, because that's just wrong. That's like saying an African-American man can't marry a white woman. I bet if it was something like that everyone would be outraged. It's the exact same case. I have a lot of friends who're homosexual, and I want them to be able to get married. I want to attend their wedding and watch them raise their beautiful adopted children. I wanna be a bridesmaid at the wedding, I wanna be the one to catch the bouquet, I want to see my friends be happy. I'm so angry and disappointed that proposition eight passed.

 

[atticus]

I thinks it's disgraceful. I don't know why people can't just realise, the simple fact, that love is love. It shouldn't matter, what gender, skin color, or religion you are, it's love. That should be enough.

 

[Kean]

Olbermann: Why Can't Gays Marry? | Drudge Retort

This video says it all I think. If only people would listen and heed these words.

 

[luckystar]

it made me very upset i just dont understand in this day and age what the problem is, this fear against people who are in the minority has got to spot and i really thought it was a huge step forward with the new usa president and then this law getting passed just drags it right down again, its unfair that not everyone has the right to marry and even though im not from california and it doesnt effect me im still from a place where chances are il never be allowed to legally marry so its upsetting

 

[Blair Waldorf-Bass]

Olbermann: Why Can't Gays Marry? | Drudge Retort

This video says it all I think. If only people would listen and heed these words.

Oh wow, that was good. Thanks Keanoite!

 

[atticus]

They're certainly entitled to think that, and they're entitled to full respect for their opinions... but before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience. ~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 11, spoken by the character Atticus

I think there's just one kind of folks. Folks. ~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 23, spoken by the character Scout

This is the book, that thought me, not to judge people because they are different to what you are. Some of my favorite quotes, they seem appropriate

 

[Airam]

When I heard that it came back as yes I think the only word to describe my immediate reaction was disbelief. I was as confident that the vote on Prop 8 would come back a solid NO as I was that Obama would win, so I really just couldn't believe it. I mean, I could maybe believe it if it were any other state besides California but.... How so many people this day and age could still be SO ignorant, hateful and close-minded, well, I'll just never be able to wrap my head around it. And how that proposition could ever even be brought to a vote I don't understand either, I mean, legislature was passed, how could they overturn it?! Its just all ridiculous and pointless IMO. Why shouldn't everyone have the equal right to happiness and shared joy in life with the person they choose to spend the rest of their lives with? My brother is gay and he, along with all the rest of homosexuals in America and all over the world, deserve the same rights as any other straight couple out there. Shame on anyone that voted yes. And I, of course, support and hope that all the efforts to get this proposition overturned are succesful!

 

[Joyce Summers]

I was in complete shock when Prop 8 passed. Just as California had taken steps forward it took this huge leap back....and all because of 52%. Just 52! One of my friends actually got married during that time it was legal in Cali- nothing huge or fancy, just sweet and just close friends and a few family. It was a lovely ceremony yet does this now mean that their entire joining is now completely void? Those vows meant nothing?

I just don't get it, how can someone be against gay marriages? Gay people getting married doesn't hurt anyone- people who are against it for whatever crazy reason don't ever have to know about it; it isn't thrown in their faces....it's all to do with the two people getting married and nobody else. I don't get how it being legal is even a question. Those people who voted against it have nothing to do with gay marriage at all so really how are they allowed a say? It's just like any other marriage- it's nothing to do with anyone else. If two people want to make their vows to one another, why should anyone be allowed to say 'no actually, we don't want you to'?

 

[LorneyTunes]

It is such a disgrace that in this day and age people can still think this way. Everyone has a right to love whoever they want to. Marriage is a step in love therefore anyone should be allowed to be bonded in it. No matter of colour or sexual status . If I lived in America am sure I would vote to stop this madness. It is like people "mostly" gotten over the colour of the skin now they must moan about something else why can't we all just get along .

 

[Washburne]

I totally agree that this is a total disgrace. But this whole "in this day and age" thing got me wondering. I hate how it is. Don´t doubt that for a second. But at the same time I remember how it was when I grow up. I don´t like to see me as THAT old, but things sure has come a long way since that time. I´m not an american but even here the news of Ellen Degeneres coming out got into the news. Being gay around my parts was seen as a kind of "sickness" and something you made fun of. If you had ear rings or at least in the wrong ear you could be seen as gay. Looking back I´m so ashamed on how it was. But the thing is, many of my former friends are still the same way. Change doesn´t happen over night. I wish it would but many people are close-minded (I´m not in this issue but I´m sure you can find someone who thinks that I am in another. Guns anyone?) and change will take time. I just hopes it happens as soon as possible.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I was actually surprised and pleased to hear the California voted yes to Prop 8. I suppose that makes me the minority on this board. I was preparing to write this to Kean via a PM as I did not want to hear the backlash over my agreement with California but I remembered I should not be afraid to mention my beliefs even if feathers are ruffled. I am not going into enter into the debate on the open board (this will be my mantra) I will simply state my views and leave it at such. I fear the topic too heated to have a friendly debate without nail scratching and hair pulling. (though I would be happy to be proven wrong)

First marriage is defined as a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, simple as that. I view it as that and nothing more. For that reason: good for you California! However my conservative views do not run so deep not to recognize that gay people can and do live in union together. I understand that and accept that. Yet they should not be allowed to be married.

We have to remember that marriage is not a right. No one has the "right" to get married. If that were the case I could sue as I am single and being denied MY rights. Marriage is an institution between and man and a woman; the problem is not redefining marriage but redefining our laws. A same sex 'marriage' will always be separate from real marriage (for reasons I stated) yet there is no reason, in terms of law allowed to both couples, it cannot be equal.

To my understanding the case for gay marriage is not so much about being 'married' as much as it is recognition and rights that come with and to married couples; at least by, and for those actually concerned with marriage. So my answer is simple. Allow the same rights; if the partner dies, allow the other life insurance etc etc you can go down the list. That would allow same sex (or even man and women) that spend their life together yet never married the benefits without redefining the entire institution of marriage.

Should they have equal rights? Yes, I do believe that. Should they be married? No. Coupled, partnered, mates; whatever other name you want to call it to allow these rights is fine by be. Just leave the word married out of it.

Does that make me a bigot? No. But I fully understand how some could view it as such. Just remember while we are talking rights, I have every right to post the way I feel, as people have posted how they feel, without being attacked for it. In my mind, you cannot have a same-sex marriage. It is an oxymoron.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Personally, I really am no friend of the concept of marriage in general, no matter if gay or straight; I find the concept seriously outdated. But if a society chooses to have the institution of marriage continue to exist in the 21st century, I see absolutely no valid reason for this society to deny equal access to said institution to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. (That I would prefer said equality in the form of the state legally acknowlegding no form of marriage, leaving marriage vows to be private and/or religious ceremonies for all those who want them, straight or gay, is another matter... and a matter which I very well know won't get tackled any time soon, if ever. 😉 )

It got undone in California, so I'm afraid full equality still has a long way to go in the US. (Not that it were that much better this side of the Big Pond.)

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I just wrote this for a blog, I am mightily displeased.

One step forward, one step back.

So who thought America was on a new road of understanding, personal freedoms and social equality after the election of Barack Hussein Obama II?

Who believed that the country was taking that all important step forward to show us all that they were willing, and indeed able, to look passed the superficiality of colour or gender that doesn't define a person, but it was their actions, their understanding and beliefs that do?

Who figured that after such a momentous occasion as voting into office the first black (well mixed race but that isn't the topic of conversation) president, it was almost a foregone conclusion that California would say a resounding "˜No' to Proposition 8?

Well sadly that is not the case.

On November 6th 2008 52% of voters said "˜YES' to Proposition 8.

Proposition 8, for those who do not know, is a California State ballot Proposition amend the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It would overturn a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (borrowed from Wikipedia)

To that end it seems almost inconceivable that one of the most liberal states would pass such a thing, a State that made a resounding "˜YES' to Obama could say "˜NO' to an equal right less than 48 hours after Barack became President-elect.
OK, maybe equating the two is wrong simply because Obama himself is opposed to the idea of same sex marriage as it is a conflict with his belief, but the absolute truth is, if you believe in equality for all then there should be no conflict here.
One persons right to live a life he chooses that doesn't affect another in a negative way or impede anyone, isn't that really the core of freedom and equality?

In certain parts of the US a little over half a century ago it was still illegal for two members of "˜differing race' (I used the little quotes because I hate the term race to signify a difference between peoples of this planet "“ are we not all part of one race, the human race?) to get married, or indeed have sexual relationships. Had people not fought hard to oppose and change that, we wouldn't even have Obama in the White House come January 20th.

People need to realise that the love one person has for another is not defined by what reproductive organs they have on the inside, what colour their skin is or indeed who they pray to, but instead what their heart tells them. A union of two people, any two people will not affect you in any way, so why must you make it about you?

When people do realise this, eventually that day we won't need anyone to "˜vote' on someone elses personal freedoms, but sadly thanks to the State of California, it seems that day is still a long way off.

 

[Harley]

I guess I view everything with a cloud.

I don't understand how there could such a vocal outcry for this.

Over three thousand Americans are killed everyday by abortion. Three Thousand.

If that number of women were killed everyday, it would genocide.

If that number of blacks were killed everyday, it would be genocide.

If that number of gays were killed everyday, it would genocide.

If we had a president that allowed a war where that many soldiers were killed everday, he (or she!) would not only be kicked out office, they would probably be assisinated.

How can you expect to have the freedom to marry when you're gay if society can't even recognize your right to life?

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I was actually surprised and pleased to hear the California voted yes to Prop 8. I suppose that makes me the minority on this board. I was preparing to write this to Kean via a PM as I did not want to hear the backlash over my agreement with California but I remembered I should not be afraid to mention my beliefs even if feathers are ruffled. I am not going into enter into the debate on the open board (this will be my mantra) I will simply state my views and leave it at such. I fear the topic too heated to have a friendly debate without nail scratching and hair pulling. (though I would be happy to be proven wrong)

First marriage is defined as a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, simple as that. I view it as that and nothing more. For that reason: good for you California! However my conservative views do not run so deep not to recognize that gay people can and do live in union together. I understand that and accept that. Yet they should not be allowed to be married.

We have to remember that marriage is not a right. No one has the "right" to get married. If that were the case I could sue as I am single and being denied MY rights. Marriage is an institution between and man and a woman; the problem is not redefining marriage but redefining our laws. A same sex 'marriage' will always be separate from real marriage (for reasons I stated) yet there is no reason, in terms of law allowed to both couples, it cannot be equal.

To my understanding the case for gay marriage is not so much about being 'married' as much as it is recognition and rights that come with and to married couples; at least by, and for those actually concerned with marriage. So my answer is simple. Allow the same rights; if the partner dies, allow the other life insurance etc etc you can go down the list. That would allow same sex (or even man and women) that spend their life together yet never married the benefits without redefining the entire institution of marriage.

Should they have equal rights? Yes, I do believe that. Should they be married? No. Coupled, partnered, mates; whatever other name you want to call it to allow these rights is fine by be. Just leave the word married out of it.

Does that make me a bigot? No. But I fully understand how some could view it as such. Just remember while we are talking rights, I have every right to post the way I feel, as people have posted how they feel, without being attacked for it. In my mind, you cannot have a same-sex marriage. It is an oxymoron.

I know you said you didn't want debate, and I understand that, but I have a question for you (and everyone else) that I'm interested in finding out the answer to.

In Scotland, the courts used to refuse applications for same-sex marriages based on the statutory definition of "marriage" being between a man and a woman. This is pretty much the first point you made, right? Well, eventually, the European Court of Human Rights judged that this was in violation of people's human rights, and so we had to come up with a solution. What we now have is "Civil Partnership", which is marriage in all but name (and religion).

So, my question is - do people think this is a good substitute? Would you accept this alternative scobro?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

What we now have is "Civil Partnership", which is marriage in all but name (and religion).

We have something similar here, but you are not afforded the same laws and rights as a married couple. I think if you were to afford the same 'marriage' laws to Civil Partnership then there would be no problem. In fact I think you would see less M/F marriages as well and more partnerships... but that is for another day.

 

[Veyron]

Being British we really don't have much say on what happens to our cousins across the pond and rightly so as I doubt very much that they'd be happy with what I suspect the majority of the population of the United Kingdom would say on the matter of Gay Marriage as it pertains to the state of California.

It's been legal here for quite some time and it's called a Civil Partnership. Quite a few famous names have taken the step and gotten married to their respective partners and there hasn't been the slightest of out cries that I'm aware of. For California to ban gay marriages is like returning to the stone age in my opinion - it's wrong to try to stop people from doing what feels natural to them. There are always going to be those who say that it shouldn't be allowed and whilst I respect their views and opinions, surely it's up to those involved as to whether or not they wish to marry their respective partner or not.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I guess I view everything with a cloud.

I don't understand how there could such a vocal outcry for this.

Over three thousand Americans are killed everyday by abortion. Three Thousand.

If that number of women were killed everyday, it would genocide.

If that number of blacks were killed everyday, it would be genocide.

If that number of gays were killed everyday, it would genocide.

If we had a president that allowed a war where that many soldiers were killed everday, he (or she!) would not only be kicked out office, they would probably be assisinated.

How can you expect to have the freedom to marry when you're gay if society can't even recognize your right to life?

I see what you are trying to do but as they are completely different topics, I don't think it is fair to try and equate them.

I am anti-abortion, you know that, you must even remember the you, me, lbSame and Oni Tenshi Rune conversation BUT I don't believe you have to get one to achieve the other.

In fact I can see both sides of the argument for abortion, there are very strong arguments for both sides (not that I will change my opinion based on any of them) however for the right to marry the person you love, I have yet to see a convincingly strong argument against.

The reason there is such a vocal outcry is because it is an unnecessary piece of legislation that prevents two people doing something that should be a basic right in a 21st century society - any 21st century society.

Because abortion is something that is allowed, should the people being faced with this injustice not say anything?

What about Fathers4Justice? They can't see their children as often as they want BUT at least the child has been born - should they not make such an outcry until abortion is abolished as a viable way to rid yourself of something unwanted?

Of course not. People can, and will, continue to support and make noise for issues that affect them directly, doesn't mean others are less important, just that people have to prioritise what and when they support because we only have limited time in the day.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

We have something similar here, but you are not afforded the same laws and rights as a married couple. I think if you were to afford the same 'marriage' laws to Civil Partnership then there would be no problem. In fact I think you would see less M/F marriages as well and more partnerships... but that is for another day.

Well, we have Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage, which are available to a Man and a Woman. Civil Partnership is the legal equivalent to Civil Marriage. Originally, I was in the camp that wanted Civil Marriage to be opened to same-sex relationships, but now I'm pretty happy with the situation as-is.

Would taking the word "marriage" out of the equation make any difference in California?