Prop 8....

[Rhodri]

'for' or 'against' and why.

 

[vyo476]

Neither. The future of marital equality lies in deregulating marriage, not in adding more regulation. Take the whole thing - heterosexual and homosexual - out of the government's hands. I don't see any compelling reason for it to be there in the first place.

 

[GenSeneca]

Neither. The future of marital equality lies in deregulating marriage, not in adding more regulation. Take the whole thing - heterosexual and homosexual - out of the government's hands. I don't see any compelling reason for it to be there in the first place.

Agree 100%, very well said. Its only there as a political football that politicians can kick around to score points with their base and maintain a partisan divide.

 

[Pandora]

I am glad it passed but not because I give a rip about homosexual marriage one way or the other.

The voters had already voted for this then the courts said we dont care what voters think, so voters had to speak up again.

besides this is one of the very few issues I do not think can be done state by state. Homosexuals move to other states just the same as every one else, its not fair to them to say you are married if you live here but if you move to another state you are no longer married.

and also its unfair to change the rules for one minority group and not others. The law has to be changed for everyone if it is going to be changes. Polygamists are people too

 

[vyo476]

Agree 100%, very well said. Its only there as a political football that politicians can kick around to score points with their base and maintain a partisan divide.

This is one of several positions I've changed on since coming to this board. I used to be ardently pro gay marriage (I argued for it quite extensively here, actually) until I was convinced that this is a better alternative.

 

[oceanenvy]

Neither. The future of marital equality lies in deregulating marriage, not in adding more regulation. Take the whole thing - heterosexual and homosexual - out of the government's hands. I don't see any compelling reason for it to be there in the first place.

I actually agree with this. Don't understand why government is involved in marriage at all.

 

[Chip]

Prop 8 -- the gay marriage ban in California -- should never have been necessary.

All along, the foundational matter was taxation and equality.

Domestic partnerships are taxed unfairly by the government with regard to income and inheritence and these partners are treated with inequality by corporations such as hospitals and insurance companies.

The right thing to do was to lobby successfully for a law change so that domestic partnerships had fair and equal rights with the partnership of marriage, marriage being a special partnership between a man and a woman as husband and wife by definition.

But activists found the going slow with regard to changing government and corporations.

So, rather than wait forever, some clever strategist decided that if they could hijack the definition of marriage and make it whatever they wanted it to mean, then gays and lesbians could sneak in as "married" partners to receive fair treatment by the government and corporations.

So the bosses of gay and lesbianism instigated a "less than" attitude in their ranks that made the gay and lesbian masses feel like they were being cheated, and then these bosses told these masses that the solution to their "less than" shame is to simply get married, and whereever they were not allowed to get married they needed to scream bloody discrimination.

So, agitated out of all proportion, the gay and lesbian masses started hijacking marriage, where they didn't even begin to qualify, and to the point where they were insanely successful in some places.

Thus, to restore sanity to the world, California passed the gay marriage ban initiative, Proposition 8.

Now, the right thing for the gay and lesiban masses to do is to return to the appropriate approach of stumping for law changes to domestic partnerships.

But, no, it's too late for rationality and right doing, as now that the gay and lesbian rabble are rabid on the matter of hijacking the definition of marriage, now that they think their very rationale to exist is completely wrapped up in securing marriage for themselves, they could never emotionally drop homosexual marriage without feeling overwhemling, debilitating though unjustified shame. Gays and lesbians are now consumed by the thought of achieving a quick though irrational fix to their problem.

This issue is an example of why it is always important to nip misdirected hysteria in the bud, before it blooms out of control.

You don't bring a cat to a dog show -- that's just obvious.

Equally as obvious is that marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife, and you don't bring a gay and lesbian into a marriage.

Hopefully the liberal activist judges and the vote-and-wife-pandering governator won't succeed in overturning the gay (and lesbian) marriage ban that the saner element of California has managed to pass.

 

[Pidgey]

Haven't done a comprehensive study into all the relative codification, but I expect that a lot of the defining intent within laws pertaining to marriage have to do with the idea of a continuance of property ownership within the family structure. We probably codified all of that proceeding from a basic need to maintain mutual respect of life, property and family in order to preserve domestic order and cooperation. A true family produces heirs from the physical body and the continuation of our species requires a certain level of legal concern be taken. It's one of those basic truths that's so obvious that it's pretty easy to miss it entirely.

You read that paragraph above and might get an uncontrollable urge to say, "well... duh!" However, it is very important for codified law to be so completely delineated in one form or another, else anarchy can and will destroy everything.

 

[oceanenvy]

Haven't done a comprehensive study into all the relative codification, but I expect that a lot of the defining intent within laws pertaining to marriage have to do with the idea of a continuance of property ownership within the family structure. We probably codified all of that proceeding from a basic need to maintain mutual respect of life, property and family in order to preserve domestic order and cooperation. A true family produces heirs from the physical body and the continuation of our species requires a certain level of legal concern be taken. It's one of those basic truths that's so obvious that it's pretty easy to miss it entirely.

You read that paragraph above and might get an uncontrollable urge to say, "well... duh!" However, it is very important for codified law to be so completely delineated in one form or another, else anarchy can and will destroy everything.

Using this logic then, we should only allow couples with an intention to procreate to get married. Maybe they should take fertility tests prior to being allowed a marriage license?