California - Proposition 8

Well, the law it was apparently allowed under in California was its state constitution, enacted in 1879. I doubt they were really thinking about gay marriage when they wrote it. Much like the famous Roe v. Wade abortion case, it's really more a case of judges making laws of their own accord, against the normal interpretation of the law.

Equally of course, thousands of men fought in America for the right to keep slaves...

There have been a great many legal rights taken away in this country which I suspect that the majority of people in this thread would not be opposed to. Frankly I find the democratic removal of my right to own a semi automatic firearm far, far, far more disgusting, dangerous, and tyrannical than the removal of the right for the state to marry homosexuals.

This is nothing to do with Prop 8, but I would rather be gay and unmarried yet armed than gay and married yet unarmed. It is much better in a country like the United States if you are an ethnic minority to have a pistol in your sock drawer than to have a certificate saying you are married or you have equal pay rights by law or whatever it is that minorities are asking for.

Again, it's a separate issue, as gay people have not made the decision to break the law in any such way, and therefore shouldn't be 'punished' by having their rights eliminated.

I can't really be bothered to get into a debate about incest at the moment.

Yes and they are exactly the same as marriage in all but name.

It passed.

So you think people who break the law should have their rights eliminated? Perhaps it should be legal to beat them? Perhaps burgle their homes?

If you can't be bothered to consider all the pertaining facts to the case, you shouldn't be bothering to pass judgement on it either.

Again, this has very little in common with the right to marriage. As I said, it's about equality. Whether you're straight, gay, black, white, old, young, you cannot own a firearm. Nobody is being treated as a second class citizen.

That is not what I said. If you could be bothered to read my post properly we might be able to have a more interesting debate.

I am undecided. I haven't fully considered the facts and the arguments. I would be willing to debate about the issue, but not here, as it becomes completely unrelated.

I think it's much more sensible to focus on the fact that Prop 8 and the other anti-gay initiatives that passed in other states took away from people the right to do something that wasn't hurting anyone.

Again, this has very little in common with the right to marriage. As I said, it's about equality. Whether you're straight, gay, black, white, old, young, you cannot own a firearm. Nobody is being treated as a second class citizen.

It forced schools to teach same-sex marriage as a morally EQUAL alternative, Cal like the rest of America is full of religious people and they do not see this as right.
It will only take away the right for same-sex couples to call it marriage, everything else is still there.

Disclaimer: I am really not an expert on American politics.


So, as well as the presidential election yesterday, American voters could also vote on a lot of state-specific propositions, one of which was California's proposition 8.

Gay marriage has been legal in California since May, but this proposition was in favour of eliminating the rights of gay couples to marry.

It passed.

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this..

You said you hadn't considered prisoners not having the vote, and hypothesised that a good reason might be because they should have their rights removed for committing a crime.

And the incest argument is entirely related. If two people are happy together, why can't they get married? You want one rule for all, stand by what you say, instead of dodging the uncomfortable reality that even you're not happy with everybody having the same rights.

So, you agree that certain groups (prisoners and u18's for example) shouldn't have the right to vote

this has totally harshed my obama mellow.

Practically speaking I agree with Bagration that there are more important issues, given that civil unions are effectively marriages in all but name, but on an idealistic level separate but equal is inherently unequal and amounts to nothing short of tacit approval of bigotry.

Practically speaking I agree with Bagration that there are more important issues, given that civil unions are effectively marriages in all but name, but on an idealistic level separate but equal is inherently unequal and amounts to nothing short of tacit approval of bigotry.

Therefore, I would have the government award only civil unions, seeing as how marriage is generally connected with religion. Leave it up to the churches to marry people, many of which are happy to marry gay couples, and the government to grant civil unions to all who want them. That way, everyone's happy, and it would reinforce the "wall of separation" clause in the 1st Amendment.

What about the preservation of keeping the definition of marriage intact?
What about the fact that this is just not about allowing marriage, this then has to be taught to children as young as 4 as a morally equal alternative, you can't just say that not calling it marriage is just bigotry because there are other aspect's to consider.