One Election Day, it became illegal in California (as well as a few other states) for same-sex couples to marry. I have to admit, I wasn't expecting it to pass. I knew it would be close, but with Obama's big victory, I thought people had finally started to vote a bit more liberally. But, obviously I was wrong. What really surprised me was the black vote. Estimates show that around 70% of black voters voted yes to banning same-sex marriage. So despite all this talk of 'change', and that Obama himself was supposedly against such an amendment, black voters chose to take away the right same-sexy couples had had for the past few months. Anyone else find this hypocritical?
I voted no because it banned civil unions. If they want to define marriage as between a man and woman yet still allow civil unions then I'm all for it. But the amendment did not do that.
I'm not getting into the racial dynamic other than most black's values fall in line with conservative beliefs, yet they vote for liberal leaders. I went through this in another thread and surprise surprise, someone threw the race card around and implied I was racist for pointing this out...
i thought it was an abomination to be with the same sex, to get married with the bible swearing you in is hypocritical. personally i don't care who others sleep with....i make up my own bed and lay in it with who ever i choose. thats how it should be. itz mainly about sending the right message to the young ones.
Obama wasn't against the amendment. He said to let the states decide. I don't believe he supports same sex marriage personally...but I could be wrong.LJS9502_basic
He doesn't support gay marriage, but he also said he doesn't support Proposition 8 in California.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Obama wasn't against the amendment. He said to let the states decide. I don't believe he supports same sex marriage personally...but I could be wrong.RoyalAssassin78
He doesn't support gay marriage, but he also said he doesn't support Proposition 8 in California.
And he said the states should decide. Typical politician.....not saying anything substantive.:lol:
why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.
I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.
i thought it was an abomination to be with the same sex, to get married with the bible swearing you in is hypocritical. personally i don't care who others sleep with....i make up my own bed and lay in it with who ever i choose. thats how it should be. itz mainly about sending the right message to the young ones.shyskillz
The right message to send to the next generation is to be accepting of people different than yourself.
why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.
I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.
johnnyv2003
I don't care if they can get some sort of Union but they better not call it marriage and sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits.
[QUOTE="shyskillz"]i thought it was an abomination to be with the same sex, to get married with the bible swearing you in is hypocritical. personally i don't care who others sleep with....i make up my own bed and lay in it with who ever i choose. thats how it should be. itz mainly about sending the right message to the young ones.DJ_Novakain
The right message to send to the next generation is to be accepting of people different than yourself.
The right message to send to the young ones is to let them make their own decisions on the matter and not tell them it is or isn't OK.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Obama wasn't against the amendment. He said to let the states decide. I don't believe he supports same sex marriage personally...but I could be wrong.LJS9502_basic
He doesn't support gay marriage, but he also said he doesn't support Proposition 8 in California.
And he said the states should decide. Typical politician.....not saying anything substantive.:lol:
Yeah, it appears he just doesn't like the idea of amending constitutions to decide the matter.
why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.
I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.
Pirate700
I don't care if they can get some sort of Union but they better not call it marriage and sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits.
The passing of prop 8 was probably the most shameful thing I have witnessed simply because it made absolutely no sense in terms with our country. We are proclaimed to be the "Land of the Free," hell we fight wars just for this proclaimed freedom, yet this prop removes that freedom/right for marriage for that minority. I am pretty sure that many of you guys saw the ads that were pro prop 8; spewing nonsense that weren't true, such as, schools teaching our children about gay marriages. I would also like to bring up the argument that most people do not realize that there are two type of marriages; one that can be done through means of a church and one that can be done through state recognition. I agree that churches should have the right to not support/conduct gay marriage ceremonies if the religion does not tolerate, however, gays should have every right to be married and recognized by the state. This way, no religion is harmed and noone is discriminated against. It is perfectly fine to not condone or approve of gay marriages due to personal beliefs, but recognize that it is wrong eliminate that human right everyone is entitled to. I sense a revolt in a near future... and rightly so.
Yeah, it appears he just doesn't like the idea of amending constitutions to decide the matter.
RoyalAssassin78
Oh...the California constitution was created with same sex marriage? Or was that passed by their legislature? Let's face it...he said various things to various groups to get elected.
why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.
I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.
DJ_Novakain
I don't care if they can get some sort of Union but they better not call it marriage and sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits.
why?
Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.
Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.
Yeah, it appears he just doesn't like the idea of amending constitutions to decide the matter.
LJS9502_basic
Oh...the California constitution was created with same sex marriage? Or was that passed by their legislature?
I don't think so, but basically Prop 8 would have added the statement that only marriage between a man and a womanis valid or recognized in California. Thus, eliminatig gay marriage. I think, though not sure, that the CA supreme court decided on allwoing gay marriages because of the equal protection clause in the CA constitution, so I guess it doesn't specifically say anything regarding gay marriage.
Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.
LJS9502_basic
It's natural to them.:|
And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.
why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.
I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.
Pirate700
I don't care if they can get some sort of Union but they better not call it marriage and sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits.
why?
Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.
The internet isn't natural. Neither is taxation. The natural argument isn't relevant. Anything that exists in nature is natural. Natural =/= socially acceptable.
The passing of prop 8 was probably the most shameful thing I have witnessed simply because it made absolutely no sense in terms with our country. We are proclaimed to be the "Land of the Free," hell we fight wars just for this proclaimed freedom, yet this prop removes that freedom/right for marriage for that minority.
bsin94
That's a simplistic argument that fails to address the the rationale for and against gay marriage. Yes, obviously America is supposed to be the "land of the free." However, the government restricts the freedoms of all sorts of different groups. If you want to argue in favor of gay marriage, argue that it is in fact a "right." Don't equate terms like "right" and "freedom" and fill the rest of your post with obvious statements like "America = free."
Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.
Pirate700
It's natural to them.:|
And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.
A consenting couple is not hurting anyone else. I'd think your serial killer definitely is doing so....bad analogy.
why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.
I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.
Pirate700
I don't care if they can get some sort of Union but they better not call it marriage and sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits.
What does it matter what they call it? Marriage=civil union.
Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.
LJS9502_basic
It's natural to them.:|
And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.
A consenting couple is not hurting anyone else. I'd think your serial killer definitely is doing so....bad analogy.
What I'm getting at is what a very small percentage of the population wants isn't something that necessarily should be made legal. Again, if it's not a constitutional right (our amendments) then it can be voted on by we, the people. Don't like it? Then move to China or someplace where they make the rules and you have no say.
I think that's an issue in the gay marriage debate: Is homosexuality a biological imperative or simply an asthetic preference? Exactly how "natural" is it?
What I'm getting at is what a very small percentage of the population wants isn't something that necessarily should be made legal. Again, if it's not a constitutional right (our amendments) then it can be voted on by we, the people. Don't like it? Then move to China or someplace where they make the rules and you have no say.
Pirate700
Problem one with your argument is that the rights of a minority are dispensable with this way of thinking. That's not exactly how an enlightened society should work.
why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.
I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.
Pirate700
I don't care if they can get some sort of Union but they better not call it marriage and sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits.
Ummm, why? Marriage and especially marriage tax benefits are pretty much a civil institution in the USA; hence being able to get married in city hall, for instance.
What I'm getting at is what a very small percentage of the population wants isn't something that necessarily should be made legal. Again, if it's not a constitutional right (our amendments) then it can be voted on by we, the people. Don't like it? Then move to China or someplace where they make the rules and you have no say.
LJS9502_basic
Problem one with your argument is that the rights of a minority are dispensable with this way of thinking. That's not exactly how an enlightened society should work.Well that's how it does work though. We vote on what we want. In a perfect world, we would have both Obama and McCain in office so both halves would be happy but that's not how it works. We vote for one way or the other. It was up for vote and the country chose what they wanted. That's life.
Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.
Pirate700
It's natural to them.:|
And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.
Yeah, it would be great if, in the 1960's in Alabama, a popular vote had been used to decide if folks could get off the back of the bus.
The passing of prop 8 was probably the most shameful thing I have witnessed simply because it made absolutely no sense in terms with our country. We are proclaimed to be the "Land of the Free," hell we fight wars just for this proclaimed freedom, yet this prop removes that freedom/right for marriage for that minority.
bsin94
That is a big reason why some people don't approve of gay marriage. They don't want homosexuality to become a minority and receive special minority rights. Gay marriage can be seen as the first step to granting them minority status. They aren't another race of people, they just have a different sexual preference.
What I'm getting at is what a very small percentage of the population wants isn't something that necessarily should be made legal. Again, if it's not a constitutional right (our amendments) then it can be voted on by we, the people. Don't like it? Then move to China or someplace where they make the rules and you have no say.
Pirate700
Problem one with your argument is that the rights of a minority are dispensable with this way of thinking. That's not exactly how an enlightened society should work.Well that's how it does work though. We vote on what we want. In a perfect world, we would have both Obama and McCain in office so both halves would be happy but that's not how it works. We vote for one way or the other. It was up for vote and the country chose what they wanted. That's life. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were specifically designed to prevent this; read up on "tyranny of the majority", please.
why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.
I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.
Pirate700
I don't care if they can get some sort of Union but they better not call it marriage and sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits.
why?
Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.
Living in a house isn't natural. Now go live in a cave.
Well that's how it does work though. We vote on what we want. In a perfect world, we would have both Obama and McCain in office so both halves would be happy but that's not how it works. We vote for one way or the other. It was up for vote and the country chose what they wanted. That's life. Pirate700
What I'm getting at is what a very small percentage of the population wants isn't something that necessarily should be made legal. Again, if it's not a constitutional right (our amendments) then it can be voted on by we, the people. Don't like it? Then move to China or someplace where they make the rules and you have no say.
xaos
Problem one with your argument is that the rights of a minority are dispensable with this way of thinking. That's not exactly how an enlightened society should work.Well that's how it does work though. We vote on what we want. In a perfect world, we would have both Obama and McCain in office so both halves would be happy but that's not how it works. We vote for one way or the other. It was up for vote and the country chose what they wanted. That's life. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were specifically designed to prevent this; read up on "tyranny of the majority", please.I understand that and have read it. I'm saying it doesn't matter. That's how the country voted. If you didn't like it, then get more people to vote NO on such things.
What I'm getting at is what a very small percentage of the population wants isn't something that necessarily should be made legal. Again, if it's not a constitutional right (our amendments) then it can be voted on by we, the people. Don't like it? Then move to China or someplace where they make the rules and you have no say.
LJS9502_basic
Problem one with your argument is that the rights of a minority are dispensable with this way of thinking. That's not exactly how an enlightened society should work.
We have improvisation of a system to achieve the rights of minorities through other means if the majority is against it. The rights are not dispensable. With your knowledge, we should ignore the majority.
I think that's an issue in the gay marriage debate: Is homosexuality a biological imperative or simply an asthetic preference? Exactly how "natural" is it?
That was partially the mindset of the proponents of Prop 8. A lot of the tv ads I saw in my area showed a little boy/girl coming home from school and saying "Mommy, guess what I learned today? I learned about a Prince/Princess marrying another Prince/Princess, and that I can marry a prince/princess too!" Protect the children:|
What I'm getting at is what a very small percentage of the population wants isn't something that necessarily should be made legal. Again, if it's not a constitutional right (our amendments) then it can be voted on by we, the people. Don't like it? Then move to China or someplace where they make the rules and you have no say.
Pirate700
Problem one with your argument is that the rights of a minority are dispensable with this way of thinking. That's not exactly how an enlightened society should work.Well that's how it does work though. We vote on what we want. In a perfect world, we would have both Obama and McCain in office so both halves would be happy but that's not how it works. We vote for one way or the other. It was up for vote and the country chose what they wanted. That's life. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were specifically designed to prevent this; read up on "tyranny of the majority", please.I understand that and have read it. I'm saying it doesn't matter. That's how the country voted. If you didn't like it, then get more people to vote NO on such things.
That sounds all well and good but but what if gays were the majority and voted that straight people couldn't marry? Just because it was the majority that were gay it doesn't matter what happens to the straights?
Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.
Pirate700
It's natural to them.:|
And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.
Yes, what a great thing to live in a country where the majority can bully around the minority and there is nothing we can do about it. God ****ing bless America.
We have improvisation of a system to achieve the rights of minorities through other means if the majority is against it. The rights are not dispensable. With your knowledge, we should ignore the majority.
LikeHaterade
If the majority is oppressing others...yes we should. Do you think civil rights would have been enacted if we left it up to the majority?
What I'm getting at is what a very small percentage of the population wants isn't something that necessarily should be made legal. Again, if it's not a constitutional right (our amendments) then it can be voted on by we, the people. Don't like it? Then move to China or someplace where they make the rules and you have no say.
redstorm72
Problem one with your argument is that the rights of a minority are dispensable with this way of thinking. That's not exactly how an enlightened society should work.Well that's how it does work though. We vote on what we want. In a perfect world, we would have both Obama and McCain in office so both halves would be happy but that's not how it works. We vote for one way or the other. It was up for vote and the country chose what they wanted. That's life. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were specifically designed to prevent this; read up on "tyranny of the majority", please.I understand that and have read it. I'm saying it doesn't matter. That's how the country voted. If you didn't like it, then get more people to vote NO on such things.
That sounds all well and good but but what if gays were the majority and voted that straight people couldn't marry? Just because it was the majority that were gay it doesn't matter what happens to the straights?
Then if it passes, that's what passes. I might not be happy about it, but I support our right to vote and decide.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were specifically designed to prevent this; read up on "tyranny of the majority", please.
xaos
Architects of our government indended those documents to protect what they regarded as natural human rights. There are all sorts of preferences (nudism, bestiality) that are tyrannized by the majority, because they offend our cultural sensibilities.
A lot of people here seem to be misunderstanding where the other side's coming from. Someone who's against gay marriage likely doesn't think that gays do have a right to marry. So simply telling such a person "The US government is supposed to protect peoples' rights" is going to be meaningless to him. If someone regards homosexuality as a personal preference, then they wouldn't see any problem in not giving it legal protection.
Bear with me here, that part is anecdotal. I've known plenty of people against both, neither, or just abortion. I've never seen anyone okay with abortion, but not gay marriage.
I have to admit, I wasn't expecting it to pass.?Bourbons3
Why wouldn't you expect it to pass? Every time these are on ballots since 2004 they always pass, and most of the time by a very high margin of victory.
We have improvisation of a system to achieve the rights of minorities through other means if the majority is against it. The rights are not dispensable. With your knowledge, we should ignore the majority.
LJS9502_basic
If the majority is oppressing others...yes we should. Do you think civil rights would have been enacted if we left it up to the majority?
The majority is saying no to gay marriage. That isn't saying no to gay relationships or legal benefits that come along with civil unions. No one is saying that marriage is better than a civil union. It was different during the civil rights era. Blacks were being physically assaulted and cheated. Everything that blacks had which was separate from whites was in worse shape. A civil union isn't in worse shape than a marriage.
Log in to comment