California votes on same-sex marriage again

[RedScare]

Actually, I kinda thought civil rights WAS about freedom of choice. Shows how much I know.

[crunchtastic]

Really my problem is that I am disgusted by homosexuals, by the thoughts of the things they do. I picture images from the Fulsum Street XX fests.

If you're thinking that hard about it, then perhaps some soul searching might be in order. Those are awfully specific visuals for a straight dude. Just sayin.

[rsb320]

Where are these people that choose to be gay? I've been around awhile and have never heard of one.

It used to be (and may still be) okay to fire an employee if they were gay, depending on the company's views. I think many companies choose to include sexual orientation in the non-discrimination clause, but it's not required by law. Then there's the military... I won't go there. Bottom line, these are all discrimination and they are based on fear (IMO).

[KinkaidAlum]

the way the chron's spinning it, sounds like obama being on the ballot may have been a bad thing for the proposal because blacks voted overwhelming for the ban.

While it is sad that by in large blacks aren't as open to gay rights as white folks, the YES ON 8 campaign openly used deceit. They sent out thousands of flyers to black churches claiming that Obama supported Proposition 8. That isn't the truth nor is it close to the truth.

That said, it's been a long time since "Christian" backed political agenda folks bothered with the truth.

[KinkaidAlum]

From one "nut job" to the peanut gallery....

How can a homosexual claim civil rights?

Do polygymists have claim to civil rights? I didn't think they did.

I understand you guys claim you can't conform to society. I guess we all have to wait for the discovery of the ever elusive gay gene. Then we can talk inalienable rights.

I'm going to be honest, I am not trying to bait here...

Really my problem is that I am disgusted by homosexuals, by the thoughts of the things they do. I picture images from the Fulsum Street XX fests.

I'm put off by the faries that throw on their manerisms and twinky voices. To me it has been and always will be a subculture of people that for varying different reasons choose to jump the fence into a taboo lifestyle.

You have to know that tons of Americans feel this way.

I don't want you to hate me, I don't hate you. I just don't want to have to explain this ____ to my kids

Based on my beliefs on the originality of homosexuality I don't see how it can ever be considered as a people, that is without question up to the standard of

a group that is worthy of rights that are granted to those of us that are born with things that we can not control that cause us to be discriminated against.

Unfortunately, plenty of people feel the same as you. Truthfully, I appreciate your honesty much more than someone who claims they are inclusive and caring about equal rights for all but at the same time they'd vote for things like Prop 8. At least with your ilk, I know where I stand.

I don't hate you either. Pity is a much better word. It must be so sad to live in the Dark Ages in 2008.

[BryanS]

I understand you guys claim you can't conform to society. I guess we all have to wait for the discovery of the ever elusive gay gene. Then we can talk inalienable rights.

I am going to try to help.

No discovery of any gay gene is necessary. Whether homosexuality is a choice or is innate... it does not change the fact that the world is filled with gay and lesbian people in every county, in every state, in the United States, on every continent, across every society in the world. Given that fact, it is hard for me to believe, given the significant variation across all societies in the world that one would chose their sexuality. But again, it doesn't matter if it is a choice or not... the answer to the question will not change the fact there are gay and lesbian people in the world, and that that minority population, regardless of its origins, should be treated equitably under the law.

Really my problem is that I am disgusted by homosexuals, by the thoughts of the things they do. I picture images from the Fulsum Street XX fests.

I don't even know what "Fulsum Street XX fests" are. I'm not kidding. I don't know what thoughts you're having either... but... there seem to be a number of straight guys out there that want to engage in all kinds of "unnatural" activity with their (unwilling) girlfriends. Not to mention, a good number of straight guys seem to really like homosexuality - when it involves two women. You're not there. You're just watching them; you are nothing to them. Why not let those women get married, if they want to?

I'm put off by the faries that throw on their manerisms and twinky voices. To me it has been and always will be a subculture of people that for varying different reasons choose to jump the fence into a taboo lifestyle.

First, the world has many different colored flowers in it. Who cares about mannerisms and "twinky voices." There are significantly more "less obvious" gay and lesbian people in this world than what you see, and what you apparently have major issues with... You sure do seem to know the lingo.

You have to know that tons of Americans feel this way.

Yep. And that needs to change, for the better.

I don't want you to hate me, I don't hate you. I just don't want to have to explain this ____ to my kids

What would you possibly need to explain to your kids that would be so difficult? Trying to explain to them what "Fulsum Street XX fests" are? Why would you even need to do something like that?

Based on my beliefs on the originality of homosexuality I don't see how it can ever be considered as a people, that is without question up to the standard of

a group that is worthy of rights that are granted to those of us that are born with things that we can not control that cause us to be discriminated against.

Your beliefs are your beliefs and that's fine. But your beliefs, if manifested into public policy, harm a group of people, regardless of their "origin"... that's not fine. And in many ways, that is what the struggle for equal protection under the law, for minorities, is all about.

[KinkaidAlum]

If you're thinking that hard about it, then perhaps some soul searching might be in order. Those are awfully specific visuals for a straight dude. Just sayin.

LOL.

I'd go straight for a taste of the crunch!

[VicMan]

While the legal wrangling continues, do we have a list of counties that voted overwhelmingly for the ban?

Maybe pro-gay rights movie stars or other influential folks could buy property in those countries to deliberately raise prices of housing and convince people to move to Nevada or Arizona.

[memebag]

While the legal wrangling continues, do we have a list of counties that voted overwhelmingly for the ban?

See this link: LA Times

Pick prop 8 on the drop down.

[Ethanra]

I understand the conservative point of view on this issue and the reasoning behind the stance against gay marriage and how gay marriage may contradict core family values or the church definition of marriage. From abortion to many other issues I stick with my conservative values but to me life is to short for individuals not to be happy. If two people are in love and want to share a bond and have a family, that is beautiful. Who cares if it is a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman. As long as the people are happy and are respectful, good for them. Life is to short to be worrying about this issue.

However, I will never understand picking a hairy chest and boney butt over a beautiful woman. Whatever makes a person happy though, that is the most important thing......

[BryanS]

I understand the conservative point of view on this issue and the reasoning behind the stance against gay marriage and how gay marriage may contradict core family values or the church definition of marriage. From abortion to many other issues I stick with my conservative values but to me life is to short for individuals not to be happy. If two people are in love and want to share a bond and have a family, that is beautiful. Who cares if it is a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman. As long as the people are happy and are respectful, good for them. Life is to short to be worrying about this issue.

However, I will never understand picking a hairy chest and boney butt over a beautiful woman. Whatever makes a person happy though, that is the most important thing......

Or how straight men are so obsessed with breasts. I just don't get it. I will never understand.

[musicman]

While it is sad that by in large blacks aren't as open to gay rights as white folks, the YES ON 8 campaign openly used deceit. They sent out thousands of flyers to black churches claiming that Obama supported Proposition 8. That isn't the truth nor is it close to the truth.

That said, it's been a long time since "Christian" backed political agenda folks bothered with the truth.

yeah i know he didn't support prop 8 but then at the same time says marriage is between a man and a woman.

[editor]

yeah i know he didn't support prop 8 but then at the same time says marriage is between a man and a woman.

FWIW, here's the statement the Obama campaign provided to the Chicago Tribune for use in its voter's guide:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden oppose same-sex marriage, but support full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples"

Source

[rsb320]

FWIW, here's the statement the Obama campaign provided to the Chicago Tribune for use in its voter's guide:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden oppose same-sex marriage, but support full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples"

Source

That's what I'd be for. Who wants the extra tax liability anyway?

BTW - Miss A. Cooper on CNN just said that 70% of blacks were for the marriage thing, but that the wording was confusing. Vote yes for no and vote no for yes, etc.

What's really sad is that AK voted that homos still can't adopt children in need of good homes.

[barracuda]

FWIW, here's the statement the Obama campaign provided to the Chicago Tribune for use in its voter's guide:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden oppose same-sex marriage, but support full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples"

Source

They had to get elected. As these ballot measures have shown, proclaiming full support for gay marriage would have harmed Obama's chances of winning. So they went with the middle ground.

The only problem with this position is that it leaves a minority with less rights than the majority of society. I don't see how this can be upheld long-term in a constitutional democracy such as ours. One of the fundamental purposes of the constitution is to protect individual rights from government power, something that conservatives in recent years seem to have gotten in reverse.

I'm certain that gays will obtain equal rights in time. If the government decides to get out of the marriage business, it could simply offers the same civil union rights to couples regardless of whether they're gay or straight. But if we chose to keep government institutionalized marriage, which is probably more likely, then I feel it must apply to gay couples as well. There are simply no grounds for our government to deny this right. People may have their personal religious beliefs, but we live in a constitutional democracy, not a theocracy.

[memebag]

FWIW, here's the statement the Obama campaign provided to the Chicago Tribune for use in its voter's guide:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden oppose same-sex marriage, but support full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples"

Source

Obama says he is opposed to gay marriage, but supports states making their own decisions about it. And he also said this about Proposition 8:

"I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

Source

[musicman]

BTW - Miss A. Cooper on CNN just said that 70% of blacks were for the marriage thing, but that the wording was confusing. Vote yes for no and vote no for yes, etc.

i wonder how he would explain the asian, latin and white votes being more evenly split?

[BryanS]

]I'm certain that gays will obtain equal rights in time. If the government decides to get out of the marriage business, it could simply offers the same civil union rights to couples regardless of whether they're gay or straight. But if we chose to keep government institutionalized marriage, which is probably more likely, then I feel it must apply to gay couples as well. There are simply no grounds for our government to deny this right. People may have their personal religious beliefs, but we live in a constitutional democracy, not a theocracy.

The government is not in the "marriage business" per se in terms of sanctioning and blessing unions, churches do that. The government is, however, in the civil union business, right now. It just so happens that "the union" is nothing more than a license/contract that happens to have the words "marriage certificate" printed at the top. And that over the past 50 to 100 years, rights and responsibilities have conveniently been attached to that contract and is universally recognized by the state, insurance companies, financial institutions, etc, etc.

Creating a new, separate civil unions contract and titling it "civil union" has proved to be a disastrous failure in states that have them, such as New Jersey. Why? Because insurance companies, local and state governments, businesses do not have a "civil unionized" checkbox on their forms. They have "married" ... but not this bizarre "civil union" designation. Under operation of law, civil unions and civil marriage contracts are supposed to have identical weight in states that have them... but people who enter into them quickly find themselves fighting hospitals, insurance companies, and whole host of other burdens because to these entities they do not have to recognize a "civil union" contract or are slow to do so. The remedy? Sue. People would have to sue for their rights to force these entities to accept a civil union certificate in place of a marriage certificate. That is wrong. Why? Because if people could just get "married," by way of civil marriage contract, then there are no questions, no extra burdens to bear.

And the idea that "hey, we'll give you a civil unions option - and we'll write the law so that it makes reference that it carries the weight of all of the rights and responsibilities of a civil marriage contract." OK. We'll... if they are "equivalent," then why not just issue a marriage certificate and be done with it? Have you really done anything to "protect marriage" by creating a parallel institution that is a mirror image of it? Doesn't make sense.

[KinkaidAlum]

i wonder how he would explain the asian, latin and white votes being more evenly split?

Quit trying to make this into a race war.

Do you really want to know why Prop 8 passed?

REPUBLICANS.

Exit polls show 82% of Republicans voted YES. That's a lot more than the 70% of African-Americans, especially considering that there are a lot more Republican voters than African-Americans in California.

This wasn't a race-based decision. It was a Party based decision. But, don't tell the media in their rush to ignite the first great divide.

[VicMan]

BTW - Miss A. Cooper on CNN just said that 70% of blacks were for the marriage thing, but that the wording was confusing. Vote yes for no and vote no for yes, etc.

What's really sad is that AK voted that homos still can't adopt children in need of good homes.

1. If the wording was confusing, then another lawsuit can be filed and...

2. I don't understand how that is allowed - I have a feeling some federal law is being violated, but I am not sure what.

We need to go after the solidly anti-gay marriage counties (other than Orange County, as I don't think this plan will work there) in California and buy out property to raise the taxes sky-high. While the lawsuits fly, punish the people who wish to deprive others of their rights by raising their taxes to the max.

[musicman]

1. If the wording was confusing, then another lawsuit can be filed and...

anderson cooper's statement wasn't pc. it was confusing to the blacks but yet others had no problem since their vote was split more evenly?

[sevfiv]

This is the Christian Coalition's email message delivered yesterday regarding the decisions:

Washington D.C. -- Among the most important news from yesterday's elections were the banning of homosexual "marriages" in the states of California, Florida, and Arizona. Indeed, the citizens of California overturned a tyrannical judicial decision by 4 California judges (in a 4-3 decision earlier this year) by passing Proposition 8 yesterday.

The President of the Christian Coalition of America, Roberta Combs said: "The American people are proud of their fellow citizens in the states of California, Florida and Arizona for upholding traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Christian Coalition of America will continue to fight to ensure that government serves to strengthen and preserve, rather than threaten, our families and our values."

Thus far, 30 states have outlawed homosexual "marriages" by an average close to 70% approval by voters through amendments to the state constitutions. In addition, the voters in Arkansas yesterday approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. It will be the goal of Christian Coalition to ensure that the other 20 states adopt similar amendments banning homosexual "marriages" including the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut which also had two judicial decisions, by one vote margins, legalizing these abominations.

[ProHouston]

Yes, and in your definition of America, we'd still have slaves in the South or at least Jim Crow laws. We might also not have women voting.

People should not be voting on civil rights issues. That is NOT the American way.

As for you being the "most inclusive person you could meet," I highly doubt it. Inclusive people DO NOT DENY PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER LAW; PERIOD.

Whose rights and I denying? There is no right for same sex people to marry. I never said civil unions shouldn't be allowed rights. I never said there shouldn't be domestic partner rights. If you'll re-read my statement instead of judging me based upon your assumptions of me, then you'd see I only spoke of the definition of "marriage."

You just want me to be a racist/hillbilly/christian radical because it makes your argument easier. It makes it easier for you to judge and lump people together in a stereotype. There are many beliefs out there, open your eyes.

These sentiments are far from unique. Many people who practice discrimination are shocked and hurt that others take offense.

I'm reminded of a saying common fifty years or so ago: "I don't dislike the coloreds. I think they're just fine, so long as they remember to stay in their place."

And now we have the uppity homos wanting to get married! As if their love were real...

Once again, you're missing my point. Yes, it's true, I truly believe that marriage is a union of a man and woman. That is not discrimination. That's a definition. My brother is gay and I'm close to both him and his partner, but I still don't think they should be married. If they'd like to be united in a civil union and share in domestic partner rights, that's fine.

[sevfiv]

I still don't think they should be married. If they'd like to be united in a civil union and share in domestic partner rights, that's fine.

For the record, what is your definition of marriage, then? (you don't have to include gender, just what it is).

[ProHouston]

I'm not trying to bait either, but this is why I left the GOP 14 years ago. And for the record, I am unabashedly straight.

I'm in no way supporting the statements made above, however, what does this have to do with leaving the GOP? Are you saying all Republicans feel this way?

[memebag]

Once again, you're missing my point. Yes, it's true, I truly believe that marriage is a union of a man and woman. That is not discrimination. That's a definition.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. One could also say that a voter is a man, by definition. At one time in the US, that really was the definition of a voter. It was also discrimination.

At its core, the effort to define marriage as one man and one woman is sexual discrimination. If I am free to enter into this type of legal contract with a woman but not a man, that's only based on gender.

[ProHouston]

For the record, what is your definition of marriage, then? (you don't have to include gender, just what it is).

Matthew 19:4-6 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

[barracuda]

Matthew 19:4-6 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So it sounds like you're trying to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.

[ProHouston]

So it sounds like you're trying to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.

Aren't you trying to impose your beliefs on me?

[memebag]

Aren't you trying to impose your beliefs on me?

It isn't about beliefs, it's about rights. You're quoting one religion's text as if it should be used as the basis for law. You want to restrict the behavior of people who don't follow that religion or don't follow it the way you do.

What would government recognition of gay marriage stop you from doing? How would it harm you?