California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[Baha]

Why would you want to preserve the word marriage? It's just a word, i don't get why people get all huffy about it. Especially the people who think "well we can give them a legal equivalent to marriage, in all but name", it's better than "I DON'T ENDORSE GAYS LOL", but still a bit silly.

If churches want to deny gays to marry for the church, that's understandable, they can choose who they let in their little clubs. The state however, should get with the times and allow same-sex marriage, even if they have to rename it to get it past the fundies.

Marriage is just another word for a specific contract for two people, a civil union if you will. Sure, it can all be very sugary and nice, but the word is not sacred.

[Dezzimal]

Marriage is just another word for a specific contract for two people

You're attempting to redefine it.

Marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Go ahead and get all the social benefits you want for choosing to be with your partner, but calling marriage anything other than what it is would be like saying you're baptizing yourself whenever you go take a bath.

[Lordwafik]

I think if they did like england does and call it another word, it wouldn't get as much scrutiny. It's not about "settling for another word" either, think of it as a classification : Marriage = Man+Woman, Civil Union = Same sex


I'm sure my post will get flamed but I don't care.

[Neosutra]

I know you aren't this stupid. Mob rule is always correct right? Jim Crow laws were outstanding, why would the supreme court ever intervene and change those!

Fucking ridiculous prop 8 passed here, and I'm going to start shooting every proponent of prop 8 I meet

WHY... WHY.... WHY MUST I AGREE WITH DEMO!?!!?

/sigh

And yes, anyone who thinks mob rule = democracy is a fucking moron.

[Baha]

You're attempting to redefine it.

Marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Go ahead and get all the social benefits you want for choosing to be with your partner, but calling marriage anything other than what it is would be like saying you're baptizing yourself whenever you go take a bath.

We've all redefined it already, over the years. At least here, I'm not certain if it's the same elsewhere. When you get married, into this institution as you say, there's two ways to go about it. One thing you *have* to do is get legally married, in front of the mayor, and get registered as a married couple. Optionally you can go through a whole religious ceremony too, but all it really takes for a couple to be married is the bureaucratic stuff.

When it's come to that point, I think it's hard to argue about it being sacred. But I guess if religion wants their word back, we can just call all state marriages civil unions or somesuch, regardless of gender. Still think that's a bit ridiculous, but it sure beats having religious prejudices cloud up governing.

[*Shinzon*]

I think if they did like england does and call it another word, it wouldn't get as much scrutiny. It's not about "settling for another word" either, think of it as a classification : Marriage = Man+Woman, Civil Union = Same sex


I'm sure my post will get flamed but I don't care.

Civil Unions are already available in some states for same-sex partners, not sure how it works in Cali. Alot of homosexuals want to be 'married' in the traditional sense which is why its so controversial in many places.

[Tyche]

As I said, it's already been through the Supreme Court. So, again, I ask, if popular vote doesn't make the call, who does. Apparently not the Supreme Court.

[bombard]

Since mormons are trying to spread a word of what they believe and it's considered wrong? What makes you right over them?

People don't wake up one day and suddenly decide that they want social progress, it has to be forced upon them and they have to learn to get with the times. Women's suffrage, desegregation, civil rights, and interracial marriage were all unpopular at the time, most people learned to get with the times. Gay rights and marriage is the next frontier for civil rights.
That made me lol a little bit. HUUUGE difference between what you're saying. Gays have the right to vote and spread the word and have every avenue open to them to futher their cause, unlike the people of the past whom you are comparing them to. Totally different. Those were people who had ZERO voice, and how can you compare the sufering some of those groups (slavery, segregation, 3/5ths vote) to omgwecantbemarried? Not even close.

Mob rule isn't applying here, sorry. People are voting on things in which how they believe. Gays have not been excluded from the vote because they're gay, right?

Personal View: If gays want to suffer like the rest of us married folk, more power to 'em in my opinion. and lol@married legal benefits. Those exist still?

[0ni0n]

So what's gonna happen to the homosexual couples that are already married? Are their marital status gonna nullified?

[jmc]

Its really the word marriage that we're trying to preserve. I support civil unions for gay couples. Unions between a man and a woman are not similar to unions between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, thus they shouldn't be called marriages. Go ahead and get your joint tax forms, and your legal rights when your partner is hospitalized, but don't call your union what it is not.

This is my stand on it as well.

[Nikko]

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

Go get married in either Massachusetts or Connecticut and California will recognize it, just like driver's licenses.

Personal opinion: Voted no on 8. Religion shouldn't influence public policy, marriage should be redefined, and the amendment passed due to ridiculous homophobic advertisements that had nothing to do with the proposition.

On a side note, Barack Obama is another major reason the proposition passed. He brought a huge amount of minority first time voters out to the polls (especially blacks voting for him because he is black, sup 95% exit polling) who mostly voted yes by a large margin. Exit polling showed that 70% of blacks voted yes on prop 8. THX2U OBAMA HUGE TURNOUT.

On the other hand, Obama did get some young ppl to show up to the polls (not many, most flaked out as expected) and young people voted overwhelmingly against prop 8. As was said, in 20-30 years this won't be an issue, seems that homophobes and racists are dying off as we speak.

For anyone interested in the exit polls I was citing: Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

So what's gonna happen to the homosexual couples that are already married? Are their marital status gonna nullified?

Although its not officially decided, and Attorney General Jerry Brown said no, it is quite likely there will be challenges and that marriages can and will be nullified.

[Saphirea]

Marriage is the state of promoting a woman to motherhood and is a sacrament. Yes I know I'll get flamed for that but oh well.

1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."126 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh"

1631 marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

- Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;

- Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);

- The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

This being said, I too agree that hey, if you want to have a same sex union, fine. Get your Joint tax forms and whatever legal rights are afforded, but don't call it marriage because it is not that.

[Correction]

As I said, it's already been through the Supreme Court. So, again, I ask, if popular vote doesn't make the call, who does. Apparently not the Supreme Court.

A simple majority vote shouldn't rewrite the constitution to enshrine a position that explicitly discriminates against a group of people based on religious paranoia.

The three-fifths clause of the United States constitution wasn't overturned by a simple majority. Yet somehow California's homophobes want our constitution rewritten with an anti-gay stance by a simple majority vote, impervious to judicial, legislative or executive review.

That's bullshit.

[Tristam]

Marriage is the state of promoting a woman to motherhood and is a sacrament. Yes I know I'll get flamed for that but oh well.

1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."126 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh"

1631 marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

- Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;

- Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);

- The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

This being said, I too agree that hey, if you want to have a same sex union, fine. Get your Joint tax forms and whatever legal rights are afforded, but don't call it marriage because it is not that.

The history of marriage is a bit more complicated than what went on in the church. In Rome until the Christian emperors took over, same sex marriages were common and legally recognized. The history you presented also ignores cultural examples of group marriage, and also polygamy. Even afterwards in most cultures marriage required no formal religious ceremony, I'm not entirely sure why religions see themselves as the divine arbitrators of sexuality.

[Saphirea]

I didn't present any history, I used the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I'm a practicing Catholic who believes the teachings.

[MarkM.]

So what's gonna happen to the homosexual couples that are already married? Are their marital status gonna nullified?

A different approach to address this is let's say a gay couple is from a state that has voted to not allow same sex marriages. A gay couple lives there, goes to somewhere like Massachusetts and gets married and returns home, then decides they want a divorce. They file in the court of their home state. Their motion for a divorce won't be heard in their home state because it doesn't recognize same sex marriages.

Also, people are saying well it was a 50/50 vote, and this should pass because they didn't have a clear cut majority. I agree with part of that statement. But on the other hand, since it didn't pass with a clear majority, why should it be allowed?

[Suited Aces]

Yet somehow California's homophobes want our constitution rewritten with an anti-gay stance by a simple majority vote, impervious to judicial, legislative or executive review.

That's bullshit.

Not saying you're wrong but where was the outrage and petitions BEFORE election day. It seems all the pro-gay-marriage people were fine with the majority vote deciding the proposition before it failed to pass*.


edit: *or did pass, eh you know what I mean. I blame the tricky wording.

[Darus Grey]

Marriage is the state of promoting a woman to motherhood and is a sacrament. Yes I know I'll get flamed for that but oh well.

1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."126 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh"

1631 marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

- Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;

- Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);

- The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

This being said, I too agree that hey, if you want to have a same sex union, fine. Get your Joint tax forms and whatever legal rights are afforded, but don't call it marriage because it is not that.

If marriage is a function of church then it's unconstitutional and should not be recognized by any governing agency.

Which personally is what I support...the government should not recognize marriage...period, if we consider it to be a religious institution, and all unions should be civil unions which do not discriminate against *anyone*.

[Seraph]

Seems to be much hate on both sides of the fence here. I see alot of 'This is what I believe' and not much explanation why. I'm not talking about how things used to be, I'm talking about why people literally think what they do.

Much talk about 'equality' but I never really hear what people think that really means, or why they want it. Is there a better answer than just to have the piece of paper and the legal benefits it grants? From my understanding, from a religious standpoint, you gain nothing. I think that's why many of the anti-gay marrage people stand where they do. "Why bother?" This might be where the 'give it a different name' approach comes in. However, I hear many people getting butthurt over _not_ calling it the same thing.

Either way, I find it ironic that there is so much hate surronding an issue that is supposed to be all about love. /eyeroll

[Tyche]

A simple majority vote shouldn't rewrite the constitution to enshrine a position that explicitly discriminates against a group of people based on religious paranoia.

The three-fifths clause of the United States constitution wasn't overturned by a simple majority. Yet somehow California's homophobes want our constitution rewritten with an anti-gay stance by a simple majority vote, impervious to judicial, legislative or executive review.

That's bullshit.

You need to recognize the difference between the california state constitution and the United States constitution. It's 2/3rds majority for the California State constitution, which is what could be rewritten. Still, it went through the Supreme Court and they allowed for it to be put on the ballot. To say it wasn't put through executive review is facetious.