Prop 8 a Step Backward in Civil Rights

Two women in New York want to marry one another. You live in Wisconsin. How does their marriage affect YOU?

what gets me is that so many minorities voted in favor of Prop 8 - to take away other people's rights. yet, minorities spend so much time complaining about not having the same rights when their own matters are discussed. very very hypocritical.

How about those of us "whom" do not know how to use WHOM? What gives YOU the right to force YOUR morals upon strangers?

Any heterosexual who feels that his or her marriage is somehow "threatened" or "devalued" needs to look to their OWN house and seriously re-evaluate their own marriage. If two complete strangers that they will likely NEVER meet are somehow a "threat" to them, there are deeper, underlying issues at stake (not to mention a WHOLE lot of insecurity).

Bato you are really off your rocker. Seek help.

Why is anyone debating Bato? His profile says he is in the Philippines.

I'm straight, married and 52. My grandchildren will view prop 8 the way my children view Loving v. Virginia, as in: what were they thinking? That said, the CA Supreme Court was right, they did not rule in favor of Prop 8 they ruled that the Governor and Attorney General can't stop an initiative by refusing to defend it in Court. Now hopefully the 9th Circuit can uphold Judge Walker's excellent decision.

As to bringing Christianity into this three thoughts:
1) This the USA we are not a theocracy.
2) Why do people assume that Jesus (or for that matter Mohamed) would be displeased by our following the spirit of their teaching not the letter of the law in their century. Or to put it another way, don't you think both would be pleased at the abolition of slavery despite the fact that slavery is in both Holy texts?
3) Explain to me again why discriminating against gay people is a Christian value, i.e., how is it loving my neighbor?

The nastybad, scary gay agenda:

1. Obtain EQUAL (not "special" rights)
2. Pay taxes
3. Buy groceries

Yup. We are subversive, all right!

@Joseph: See the responses below to your 4 statements: 1. You said “how can a group of people use the courts to overrun the majorities decision. Are we not a democracy?’

The U.S. is a Democracy Republic, meaning The Majority is Limited in a Republic under a written Constitution, safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority. The courts are needed because, when the majority can pass laws or rules that apply, not just to themselves, but to all members of the group, judgment is required to DISTINGUISH potential laws which are reasonable and fair from those which are TYRANNICAL because they are unnecessary, unfair, and justifiably intolerable to the minority that opposed them. Formal mechanisms need to be in place, wherever feasible, to prevent tyrannical laws from being passed by those whose judgment in such matters might fail: For example, courts often step in when people try to pass laws to coddle their Bigotry, Hate, and/or Ignorance, ignoring that the laws are unfair, unnecessary, and intolerable to the minority by DENYING the minority the same rights the majority may have.

2. You said, When a bad law comes around, the majority steps up and strikes it down.’

NOT always true, which is why the courts may step in to right a wrong. The majority of people did not want slavery to end, equal rights for women, interracial marriages, gays, disabled, religions, etc. ALL of which were bad laws. If we made laws based on what the majority wanted, many groups within the U.S. would not have Civil/Equal Rights.

3. Marriage is a religious word. It is a religious contract between two people and God.

Whether or not the term ‘Marriage’ is a religious word is irrelevant, because words and phrases have often been redefined throughout history, and people have MANY DIFFERENT religious beliefs. For example, Throughout the centuries, there have been several ‘God-ordained’ marriage concepts, and a man and a woman has not been the ONLY marriage concept. At one time, for Christians Traditional marriage was between Brothers and Sisters (ie. Cain and his wife, Abraham and Sara, etc.) For Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other Religions it was between 2 people Gay or Straight. For Mormons, one man and multiple wives. ‘Traditional’ doesn’t mean something should never change.

4. Why should I as a Catholic have to accept an athiests view of my religion because of their "rights", what about my rights?

No one is asking you to accept an atheist or anyone else’s view. In the U.S. we have RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, and per the U.S. Constitution, Laws MUST be adopted with a secular and NOT a religious purpose, and we have the freedom of and from religion. Your religious beliefs are YOUR beliefs and not necessarily EVERYONE else’s belief.
Most groups (ie. Races, women, religions, gays, disabled, etc) are NOT looking for your approval or need for you to accept their point of view, they just want the SAME rights as everyone else. Equal Rights and treatment is an expansion of rights, and does NOT take away your rights or force you to do or believe anything. ALL people (including YOU, Christians, Catholics, Atheists, Mormons, Muslims, etc) would still be able to believe WHATEVER they want to believe . . . They just would not be able to deny people Civil/Equal Rights just because of their opinion or religious beliefs. ‘Freedom of and from religion’ not only protects others, but it also protects YOU from religious laws that you may not agree with, and it prevents others (ie. Muslims, Mormons, etc.) from imposing their religious beliefs as laws on me, others, and YOU.

i am continually amazed by all the bigoted, hateful "keyboard Christians" who seem to spend all their free time trolling the discussion forums just LOOKING for anything with a GLBT theme. If they find us so "repulsive", then why do they spend so much time making up all sorts of lurid fantasies about things they THINK we do behind closed doors? One would think they were obsessed, at the least. More likely, they enjoy a secret "thrill" brought on by a "sinful" covetous nature.

the state of california did not pass a law allowing same sex marriage. the people of the state voted to make a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. the california supreme court overturned that state law.

I woke up yesterday morning washing up and getting ready to start my work day. I stop by the local coffee shop to get my bagel and morning blend beverage which I needed to combat my hunger plus the morning traffic to get to work. After working four hours, I take my lunch break then return to work for another four hours before driving through traffic and heading home for dinner and some relaxation time with my wife. Before I knew it the 11:00 news was on discussing the Prop 8 issue. That’s when I realized something—from the moment I woke up at 7am to 11pm an entire day went by and not once did I stop to think if there was a gay couple in my neighborhood doing it or if a married couple in my town was going through an affair. Why? Because it DOES NOT AFFECT ME! Life went on as usual in spite of what may be happening in my town, my state, and the country at large.

When Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphires got married only to divorce a short time later, did anyone give it a second thought? Not really. Did it make anyone second guess their marriage or affect their marriage in any way? Of course not. You know why? Because everyone's responsible for their own relationships; what happens with another couple has no bearing on your relationship.

Seems reasonable enough, right? Well, it should. Because that's the exact same logic we should apply with gay marriage but we don't. What do I care what people do behind closed doors anyways? Is that going to hurt my marriage? NO! I affect my marriage. So it shouldn't matter if gays get married. At the end of the day, I'm the one that has to make my marriage work. I’m the one that has to teach my children about tolerance and respect for others, something I’m sure every responsible parent still teaches their kids.

I live in a condo complex where one couple is currently in the middle of a nasty divorce and another couple broke up because the wife cheated on the husband. Do you think any of these marital strifes affect me and my relationship with my wife? Definitely not. What happens with other couples does not affect my marriage and vice versa.

The notion that marriage is sacred is so ridiculous its laughable. Marriage isn't sacred. Not in America. Not when the divorce rate is at 50%. Not when Kardashian and Humphries (and celebrities in general) treat marriage like a clothing fad that's here one day and gone the next. Not when places like Las Vegas have drive-thru wedding chapels. Not when places like Cali can offer divorces for "irreconcilable differences." Not when we have shows like "who wants to marry a midget" and various other dating/marriage reality TV shows. Not when any guy can get hitched simply by applying for a male-order bride via the Internet. And certainly not when church members and even Pastors are getting divorces in record numbers.

As comedian Wanda Sykes said, "if you don't believe in same sex marriage, then make sure you don't marry someone of the same sex."

For all of the people that state the "people have spoken", or "it is the people's will" as an argument: Slavery and discrimination were once "the people's will" until the courts were able to "check" the legislature. It's called checks and balances for a reason. Our forefathers created the Constitution and our government in a manner so that our system of checks and balances would erase such injustices. Just because the people want it, doesn't mean it is Constitutional.

Civil rights? Seems to me Civil rights are being cited to pass any law that someone thinks is a good idea at the time. Like limiting MY free speach. I have a constitutional right to say what I please. Nobody has the right to not be offended.

I don't think that most people of various political or religious perspectives desire to limit GLBT folks' rights much if any, except that of changing the historical, societal and common law definition of the term "marriage" which has stood for thousands of years. GLBT folks have most if not all of the same rights through various types of civil unions and most people are fine with that. I suggest that GLBT folks come up with a new term or terms
to define and describe their unions. For example, when Chlorine is combined
with Sodim (NaCl) we call it salt. When Chlorine is combined with Potassium
(KCl) we call it Potassium Chloride. When Hydrogen is combined with Oxygen as
in H2O, we call it water. When Hydrogen is combined with two Oxgen atoms (H2O2) we call it Hydrogen Peroxide.When Hydrogen is combined with Carbon as in CH4, we call it methane. Now if you ask for a glass of water and someone hands you a glass of Hydrogen Peroxide and you drink it because the term "Water" was adulterated to include H2O2, you will die depending on its concentration. The acronistic term "GLBT" describes non-hetero people and excludes heterosexuals just as conversely "marriage" describes hetero unions and has for thousands of years. Words or terms have specific meanings and by applying other meanings, one dilutes and diminishes the meaning and actually promotes confusion to understand what is being described by a term or word. Therefore, it has been my assertion for some time that GLBT folks should choose their own term(s) to describe their unions of a man with a man or a woman with a woman.

Homosexuality is a choice not a right, the decision to participate in deviant behaviour is not protected by the constitution in any way shape or form.

This is the beginning of moral decline in the United States! Christian didn't accuse you gay and lesbian folks. Stop saying that we are bigoted and judgmental. God said it was wrong. His Holy word, the Bible declares it. If you believe in the Bible you must know in your heart any laws that are passed enabling you are just that man's law. God's Law is against your lifestyle! Repent and be born again and ask God's forgiveness. We can love each other but a marriage between same sex couples is wrong, un-natural and perversion.

There is a problem with the argument. How is Prop 8 standing in the way of the "happiness" of same sex couples? One would assume that if they are together as a couple, they must be happy. How would having a marriage certificate or lack thereof change this reality? Prop 8 doesn't deny happiness to same sex couples. It simply says that a same sex union should not be equated with the historical concept of marriage. California already gives same sex couples all the same rights and privileges as domestic partners as heterosexual married couples have (recently signed into law by Jerry Brown). That should add to, not be the cause of their happiness.

A question? If the people of california, as a democracy, voted on this and declared through a majority vote that they want prop 8 and a ban on gay marriage, then how can a group of people use the courts to overrun the majorities decision. Are we not a democracy? And if the majority voted yes on prop 8, and the governor was elected by the majority, then why should he stop something that a majority of the people already voted for. All laws are created and supported by the majority. When a bad law comes around, the majority steps up and strikes it down. Marriage is a religious word, whether people recognize that or not. It is a religious contract between two people and God. Why should I as a Catholic have to accept an athiests view of my religion because of their "rights", what about my rights?

The People of California, hardly a conservative state, voted to define marriage as between on man and one woman. All the sophistry, whining and illogic of the gay rights crowd cannot change nature, nor the opinions of the majority as to what marriage should be.