California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[zoobernut]

Bombard are you for or against non-religious Marriage of a man and a woman?

Do you believe that marriages in terms of the legal term effect you personally or your religion?

[Correction]

The real _problem_ is that people use the same word to have two different meanings; "Marriage." Personally, if they redefined all non religuous pairings as 'civil unions' I think most of this problem would go away. If you are joined in a church of some kind, you are married, otherwise you have a civil union. There, everyone gets fair treatment, and religious don't feel threatened.

Civil Unions aren't portable across states and aren't recognized by the Federal government. If you redefined non-religious marriages as Civil Unions straight couples everywhere would revolt.

Which is the point. See it yet?

[Correction]

Then be an advocate for national recognition of Civil Unions.

This shit reminds me of the 'no girls allowed' clubhouse. If a group of people do not want to accept you, you shouldn't force them (in before public Vs. private debates). Make a new group, and invite more open minded people to it. Nothing is more irritating than a whiner who has other options yet chooses not to take them.

Yeah those damn blacks wanting to sit at the front of the bus...the back of the bus is just as good!

[meson]

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/ca_prop8_writpetition.pdf

There is a difference between an amendment and a revision to the constitution and hopefully the ACLU will be able to argue that prop 8 constituted the later. By law, revisions to the constitution cannot be accomplished through the initiative process but only through special sessions of the state legislature or constitutional convention. The ACLU will argue that prop 8 contradicts core values of our constitution; equal protection, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. This contradiction and the fact the amendment will render the courts powerless to protect a minority group which has been historically marginalized makes prop 8 a revision and not simply an amendment.
Read the whole writ if you want, the above is just a summary.

[Tristam]

Middle school understanding, LOL. Right. Innovations come from more than technology there chief. Not only that, but most items you take for granted everyday came as side effects from a result of necessity from various conflicts.

US has never fought a religious war? wait a minute ... then why is one of the first amendments freedom of religion? England was doing what to people who didn't share the churches views? So it wasn't the underlying factor, but it was a major factor indeed.

Stop calling me stupid, when you don't even take the time to do proper research. I could really care less if a woman marries a donkey to be honest. But trying to justify gays having the right to get married when EVERYONE VOTED (gays, straights, Trisexuals, Transexuals, "Uncle Zeke", Master P) and the majority said no is a crock of shit.

Keep trying, keep spreading your beliefs -- but doing so while mocking others' beliefs is a crock.

I reccommend A People's History of Science by Cliff Conner, I think you'll find that basic needs drove technological innovations, including but not at all entirely due to war (not even close actually). I think you'll also find that some technological innovations that ended up being used for war were invented by people who were simply trying to understand the natural world, and not vice versa.

Amazon.com: A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and Low Mechanicks (Nation Books): Clifford D. Conner: Books

Also your beliefs are not immune to ridicule, I have every right to call someone on their silly views if I so choose, freedom of speech and all that. Freedom of religion is not the same as fighting a religious war, it's a basic right that should be fought FOR but it's very different than pitting two religions against each other and fighting. It's also very different than imposing a law that is fundamentally based on a religious belief. Church is correct, this is a proposition that never should have been voted on, it is explicitly unconstitutional.

Side note: if you're seriously bothered by someone calling you stupid on the internet, perhaps this isn't the forum for you?

Edit: and for another great book, try The Scientists by John Gribbin, he explicitly points out some of the innovations with special attention to the background against which those discoveries were made. Wars constantly pop up in his writings, but it's tough to say that people advancing technology were well treated by the situations they were in wrt. war.

[Dezzimal]

Yeah those damn blacks wanting to sit at the front of the bus...the back of the bus is just as good!

The (still flawed) parallel here would be creating your own bus line.

[Beckwin]

the non-homophobe crowd is in a very strong position for legally challenging this. an amendment to the CA state constitution means a direct path to the federal courts, and (theoretically, I don't trust the current court enough) the 14th should strike the ban down. The homophobe crowd will not want this to go to the scotus, because they can only lose, and lose big: a ruling finding the ammendment unconstitutional would legalize gay marriage in the remaining 48 states. A ruling finding it constitutional would simply keep things as is, and I do not see a homophobe amendment passing anytime soon, and the odds of it passing would go down with time.

[Charismatic]

fuck fags i dont want my kids to think 2 dudes can get pregnant and poop out a baby

agreed

[Dezzimal]

I like how you automatically assume that anyone who voted for the amendment is a homophobe, and anyone who didn't, isn't.

[meson]

Would it be a far reaching assumption to call someone racist if they voted to ban interracial marriage?

[Beckwin]

truth hurts dezzi.

[Saithorx]

It is only a matter of time before the homosexual population get their change they want.

It's up to the homosexuals to educate everyone into changing the votes opposing theirs. It will be brought to a vote again, I'm sure.

I have no issue with 2 people receiving benefits. Although in Canada, we already changed the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, I'm still against it. We did not invent marriage. It is the God-ordained covenant that unites a man and a woman in the monogamous marital union. Since the homosexual couples cannot meet the requirements of marriage, they will attempt to redefine.

[Beckwin]

Marriage predates Judaism/Christianity.

[Saithorx]

God predates all

[Intense]

If you believe in God, that is...

[Tristam]

God predates all

Captain! Incoming theological debate! Brace for impact!


*CRASH*

[Dezzimal]

Would it be a far reaching assumption to call someone racist if they voted to ban interracial marriage?

Yes, though there are not alternative motives to ban interracial marriage outside of ignorance/racism.

A groom and a bride, a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. This sacrament has been defined for thousands of years as that, why attempt to redefine something that was created by the lineage of people who are trying to preserve it as is. This is an invasion of religious tenets. You can't claim marriage for yourself and then redefine it as something that it isn't.

[meson]

Does this mean we should ban divorce in the constitution since it violates a god-ordained institution?

[Maguspk]

Marriage predates Judaism/Christianity.

Marriage in the most general sense predates them but the marriage enforced by the state and practiced by the "church" is the prototypical Christian marriage. You don't get a marriage license and then go to the courthouse and get a Hindu Wedding.

Although one could argue marriage ought to be redefined, assuming it has isn't true.

[Saithorx]

Captain! Incoming theological debate! Brace for impact!


*CRASH*

agreed. No more of those threads plz lol