California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[zoobernut]

Because if you are trying to explain something to someone, and they don't properly understand it, you have fucking failed at explaining it.


Duh? Are you trying to be this dense?

No I think you are being dense saying that misunderstandings always is the fault of the person doing the talking. Sometimes the people listening are just really retarded.

[Tyche]

That's a really bullshit line of reasoning. You should never assume people automatically understand the meaning in what you are saying. This is where confusion comes from. Why the hell do you think people ask questions?

And on topic, why do you think there is such a heated debate about this? Vague arrogance of those assuming that everyone understands their viewpoint, and should always agree with it.

There's a huge difference between poor word usage and poor understanding of the subject. I couldn't tell you the first thing about reading a blueprint, that doesn't mean it's poorly made, it just means I lack an understanding. Now, replace blueprint with the english language and "sacred" as a line on the blueprint.

And the vagueness of the US constitution is what everyone adores about it and why many see it as shear brilliance.

[Seraph]

No I think you are being dense saying that misunderstandings always is the fault of the person doing the talking. Sometimes the people listening are just really retarded.

This is correct, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a misunderstanding. Situational failure is just that, a failure. My assumption is the speaker would like to prevent this whenever possible. Like I said before, you are putting words in my mouth and just trolling my posts.

I'm done helping you shit up the thread. If you want, we can settle this like men at the flagpole after school. Be there, or be .

[bombard]

Alright -- let me get this straight, and i believe a few pages ago someone nailed it on the head.

Why do gays want to be 'married' when they could create something, with all the same legal rights, which would have a special meaning to them? Marriage seems to be more 'sacred' to 'religious' people? The same people whom just don't want you using their word. Use another one. Plenty to choose from. Call it anything you want, but if you successfully create something that is your own, wouldn't it make it that much more special to the joining couple? If then, people still vote it down, you have more valid room to bitch.

Look at it this way. Religion patented the word marriage, and it's definition. Patent a different word and make it mean whatever you want, then get legal support.

in before omgwtfurstoopid. Why don't you try something different, obviously what you've been trying juuuust isn't working.

[Headspace]

Look at it this way. Religion patented the word marriage, and it's definition. Patent a different word and make it mean whatever you want, then get legal support.

What's that Patent #?

[zoobernut]

This is correct, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a misunderstanding. Situational failure is just that, a failure. My assumption is the speaker would like to prevent this whenever possible. Like I said before, you are putting words in my mouth and just trolling my posts.

I'm done helping you shit up the thread. If you want, we can settle this like men at the flagpole after school. Be there, or be .

Why do you think just because I am disagreeing with you I am trolling?
And how did I put words in your mouth?

Really I am not trolling I am just expressing my opinion which is different than yours. I believe that just because you or other people are confused at the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage does not mean that difference is not there.

Edit: Having a discussion that pertains to the subject of a thread is not shitting it up. If you want to shit up the thread go off topic.

[Charla]

There are two possible things that you could be referring to by "something with all the same legal rights". You're either suggesting something separate but equal, which sounds just great but has disadvantages in practice, or you're suggesting something that's exactly the same but has a different name. And at that point, you're fighting to protect nothing more than a word. Is the word itself magical?

[archibaldcrane]

Why do gays want to be 'married' when they could create something, with all the same legal rights, which would have a special meaning to them?

Because they can't get all the same legal rights. That's the problem. The scare tactic is "sanctity of marriage" but the true root of this whole thing is "fuck faggots, those immoral heathens shouldn't be recognized under U.S. Law and they shouldn't have rights".

Civil Unions exist, but they don't confer the same rights as marriage. Prop 8 is actually tame by anti-gay-marriage standards, the wording of the Florida law is:

"This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

That means civil unions cannot confer the same rights as marriage, it doesn't matter what "term" you pick for it, they will never have the same rights as married couples as long as this amendment stands.

This isn't about the word "marriage", it's about civil rights - something that people just don't want gays to have. That's the only way to interpret the florida decree - not just marriage, but -any- legal institution that gives the same rights as marriage. It's not a terminology issue, it's about fundamental rights.

[Darus Grey]

I recommend we stop bitching about the use of words before I comment on it. If BG history has taught me anything it's that everyone hates it when I comment on language!

Do it for the childrenz.

[Penthesilea]

Why do you think just because I am disagreeing with you I am trolling?
And how did I put words in your mouth?

Really I am not trolling I am just expressing my opinion which is different than yours. I believe that just because you or other people are confused at the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage does not mean that difference is not there.

Edit: Having a discussion that pertains to the subject of a thread is not shitting it up. If you want to shit up the thread go off topic.

The only way to resolve this is to force it through the courts so it gets fixed that way. How long will that take? Why not start the initiative to get those who wish the same rights right now by making the legal term absolute for both hetero and homosexual couples, and not have it "marriage"?

People are obstinate and stubborn and ignorant most of all. I'd love for people to just accept marriage as having multiple meanings in contexts, but most are ignorant and retarded.

[Elesirdur]

Alright -- let me get this straight, and i believe a few pages ago someone nailed it on the head.

Why do gays want to be 'married' when they could create something, with all the same legal rights, which would have a special meaning to them? Marriage seems to be more 'sacred' to 'religious' people? The same people whom just don't want you using their word. Use another one. Plenty to choose from. Call it anything you want, but if you successfully create something that is your own, wouldn't it make it that much more special to the joining couple? If then, people still vote it down, you have more valid room to bitch.

Look at it this way. Religion patented the word marriage, and it's definition. Patent a different word and make it mean whatever you want, then get legal support.

in before omgwtfurstoopid. Why don't you try something different, obviously what you've been trying juuuust isn't working.

Forgive me for rehashing an old argument (not reading all 8 pages of this) but "marriage" has both a social and legal meaning - Prop 8 stands to exclude same-sex couples from the legal status of marriage (of which common law is not the same).

When you are wed in a church you are doing two things, participating a religious ceremony based on the religion (Christian, Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, Muslim, etc...) which 'spiritually' binds the betrothed together, and then there is the civil union part which is accomplished by signing and witnessing the marriage licence in front of an agent of the state - in the church/synagogue/mosque/temple setting it will be the priest as they are granted that power by the state.

I cannot think of any single same-sex marriage law in the world that is mandating churches or religious organizations to perform same-sex marriages unless they agree to it. As far as I understand it, the current laws in California do not require this since I'm pretty sure that would be an impingement on the federal constitutional rights of churches to free operation and against the tenants of separation of church and state.

However, Prop 8 would prevent same-sex couples from even entering into a civil marriage - which in its most basic form is just a legal contract binding two parties together as a legal entity and affording them special legal status that non-married or common-law persons/couples do not have. That is flagrant discrimination and a clear violation of the social human rights laid down in the law (though not called 'human rights' I know) as benefits of citizens of the State of California to wed and receive the benefits to being legally wed.

If churches and mosques don't want to perform the religious ceremony, that's fine by me. But denying same-sex couples the right (not just the ability or the privilege, the right) to be wed in the eyes of the law is de facto descrimination based on sexual orientation.

[archibaldcrane]

You don't understand the difference between making redundant laws or unconstitutional laws, do you?

Noone is talking about making a new law here. Constitutional amendment =! law

Laws are subject to judicial review, properly implemented constitutional amendments are not. The only legal recourse here is to decide whether it was properly implemented (amendment vs. revision definition). It's not a law that the state courts can strike down as they please, it's the guideline by which other laws are reviewed now.

[Elesirdur]

Noone is talking about making a new law here. Constitutional amendment =! law

Laws are subject to judicial review, properly implemented constitutional amendments are not. The only legal recourse here is to decide whether it was properly implemented (amendment vs. revision definition). It's not a law that the state courts can strike down as they please, it's the guideline by which other laws are reviewed now.

Not to mention that repealing or amending a constitutional amendment/provision is fantastically more difficult than repealing or amending a law/statute.

[Lurking Badger]

If I am a muslim, can I have a wedding and call myself married?

[zoobernut]

The only way to resolve this is to force it through the courts so it gets fixed that way. How long will that take? Why not start the initiative to get those who wish the same rights right now by making the legal term absolute for both hetero and homosexual couples, and not have it "marriage"?

People are obstinate and stubborn and ignorant most of all. I'd love for people to just accept marriage as having multiple meanings in contexts, but most are ignorant and retarded.

Well I don't really have an argument for that. It was discussed earlier in the thread and I said I would support creating a new legal term for it as long as it was applied to every "marriage" that was legal. If that is the only issue then the whole argument boils down to people protecting a word instead of an idea which seems rather strange.

On a side note though if we changed laws to cater to the ignorant and retarded then we would not need lawyers because all the laws would be written in a way that everyone could understand them.

[archibaldcrane]

Fortunately, repealing prop 8 is no harder than implementing it, just need another 2.5% of california voters to not be douchebags.

Might be easier to accomplish on a year when there isn't a presidential election ...maybe. Hard to say.

[Charla]

Fortunately, repealing prop 8 is no harder than implementing it, just need another 2.5% of california voters to not be douchebags.

So give it what, about 8 years?

[Valisk]

When the government grants certain rights to those that are married, ALL people should have that opportunity. Civil Unions, though toted as separate but equal (which isn't even legal according to the supreme court), do not grant the same rights.

ALL men have the opportunity to marry a woman. ALL women have the opportunity to marry a man. ALL people have the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. EVERYONE is given this opportunity.

There's nothing stopping homosexuals from getting married in every traditional sense of the word. They can have a ceromony, reception, get a power of attorney, etc, and live a married lifestyle.

The only thing they don't get are the government (tax payers) benefits (not rights, benefits) that come with the state recognizing your marriage. The government hands out beneifts all the time based on discrimination, it's bascially what makes them benefits and I don't see any outcry over that.

This is the best quote so far but everyone ignored it. This was posted on page 1.

[aurik]

ALL men have the opportunity to marry a woman. ALL women have the opportunity to marry a man. ALL people have the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. EVERYONE is given this opportunity.

If men can marry women, why can't women marry women? Are you willing to deny women the same right that men enjoy?

[archibaldcrane]

If men can marry women, why can't women marry women? Are you willing to deny women the same right that men enjoy?

Exactly.

Your position is terribly sexist Valisk. Why do you think that men and women should be given unequal rights? I don't see why I, as a male, are able to marry a woman, when another person who happens to be a woman doesn't get the same right.

Why are you so sexist?