California's Proposition 8 (anti-gay marriage)

Here in California we have a measure on the ballot to change the consitution to take away marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would want to do this. I get that this is primarily a religious position, but marriage as defined by the state and by the church are two different things.

Why is it okay for religious people to tell the state what is right when I am sure they would not react kindly to the state telling the church what they can do?

My understanding is that followers of a particular religion believe they are only married in the eyes of God when they marry through their church. So if gays are not allowed to be married in their churches, then why do the religious followers care what the state says?

I am also seeing reports that minorities, particularly hispanics and African Americans, are mostly FOR Prop 8 (against gay marriage). It was not so long ago that we had segregation laws on the books and did not allow interracial marriage. The people who were for segregation probably believed just as fervently in their cause as the anti-gay marriage people today believe in theirs. How can people who have to deal with racist injustices every day not see how close this issue is to racial civil rights issues?

I am a bit perplexed and would welcome some intelligent discussion on this subject that does not include "because the Bible says it's wrong." People said the Bible justified owning slaves too.

one word...agreed.  i think its great you're putting out your opinion, because there's bound to be a lot of scared people, who are quick to judge what they don't understand.  it is not okay for us to tell someone their love is inferior to ours, so they don't deserve the same rights.  agreed.

Thanks tennislove :)

I think it is funny (if a bit disturbing) that I have a pro-Prop 8 ad at the bottom of my screen! There is a lot of money behind this proposition, a lot of it from out of state religious organizations.

hey im from the UK but ive seen what's happening in california on the ellen degeneres show. its awful! it would be unheard of in this country. it just wouldnt be even considered.

i think america needs to be brought into the 21st century and shown that things have moved on since the time the bible was written.

p.s. all us english folk are also wondering how on earth sarah palin came to be a vp candidate?!?!

Sorry, I know you're looking for some kind of explanation that makes sense of people supporting proposition 8, but I'm just as perplexed as you are.  Frankly, I just want to tell the idiots who propose such legislation, "Keep your nose out of my vagina!"  Well, I need to stop now before I start ranting...

Infuriatingly, Florida also has an amendment on the ballot to disallow gay unions. Am increasingly sick of narrow minds.

Seems like this must be unconstitutional, since the constitution does not strictly forbid gay unions. Isn't there something about the right of the individual being the default?

Hmm ok... so we can stop them from getting married... but how are we going to stop them from having secks?!?!

Original Post by loriklorik:

Hmm ok... so we can stop them from getting married... but how are we going to stop them from having secks?!?!

 LOL!

I'm voting against Prop 8.  Fo Sho.

Original Post by kathygator:

Seems like this must be unconstitutional, since the constitution does not strictly forbid gay unions. Isn't there something about the right of the individual being the default?

 Part of the campaign against Prop8 in California is based upon the fact that such statutes are unconstitutional.  But increasingly, in recent years, it's become apparent that the current presidential administration cares little about constitutionality, so Joe and Jane Citizen have little reason to care either... :(

Original Post by purespark:

I'm voting against Prop 8.  Fo Sho.

I'm with the most intelligent and beautiful Meagan on this one. -nods-

Im not picking a side since I don't live in California, but I have a couple questions/comments.

First, I don't think its unconstitutional because it is a state directive and the constitution gave the states the rights to make there own laws and govern as seen fit within their state, so because its a state proposition it then doesn't fall under the constitution. I could be wrong, but I think if it is not covered in the bill of rights then it is up to the states to come up with legislation for themselves. That is just my take on it anyways, I am no constitutional scholar by any means.

Secondly, I have a question about the law in the first place. I heard/read (I think) that when california voted to pass the allowance of gay marriage in the first place, that it wasn't passed by the popular vote but the California Legislation passed it anyways. Is there any truth to this? If that is the case then I can understand why it is on the ballot.

Said it before and I'll say it again:

The state can confer rights to qualified relationships as it so chooses, but the state can't force a church to marry anyone.

The church can choose to marry based on it's own qualifications, but it can't force the state to observe their definition of a qualified relationship.

@ #11

In 2000 California voters passed a proposition that defined marriage as between a man and a woman only (prop 22.) Before that, there was no law regarding gay marriage at all, but people were afraid that our legislature might allow it someday. When couples started marrying in SF they had standing to sue the state saying prop 22 violated the CALIFORNIA Constitution and they won on appeal. So the courts decided that same-sex marriage is legal in California based on our state Constitution and invalidated prop 22.

Prop 8 wants to ammend the California Constitution so that the courts cannot decide the definition of marriage. If that happens the only way we would see same sex marriage here is if federal law changed allowing same sex marriage for everyone (federal law trumps state law as part of the supremacy clause of the US Constitution) or if the US Supreme Court decided that denying gay couples the right to marry violated the US Constiution. Whatever clause they used that made anti-miscegenation laws illegal in the 60s would probably be the same constitutional argument for gay marriage. Equal Protection or Due Process, I think. It's been a while since I've studied Con Law, so I may not be 100% on the details here, but am too lazy to look it up.

Since the US Supreme Court only decided a few years ago that being gay wasn't a crime (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) I doubt they'll decide in favor of gay marriage any time soon.

The fact that prop 22 ever passed still boggles my mind. I don't understand how a gay couple getting married could be offensive to anyone. I can only hope enough people have changed their minds on this issue in the past 8 years for this proposition to fail miserably.

*Edited to change prop 89 to prop 22. Oops.

And don't you just LOVE how the Yes on 8 people are claiming that children are going to be taught that a "King can marry a King" in schools?  Um, I haven't been out of school for too long, and I don't recall being taught about how marriage is between a man and a woman.  I attended catechism in my younger years at a Catholic church and I don't remember anything about marriage being mentioned, other than you need such and such things fulfilled before you can get married in a church. 

I think that if these people are preaching "RESTORE MARRIAGE" on everything, they maybe should try to combat the 52% divorce rate.  Yeah, that makes sense.  Let the drunk people get married in Vegas just because they have different genitalia, but let's demonize these people that love each other and are willing to fight for their rights to be recognized as human beings, and go to church on Sunday with my fourth spouse and pretend we love everyone.  Really??!!!

Personally I don't care either way, and since I don't live in California anway, I don't have a horse in this race.  I think we've got way bigger problems then a question of whether or not two people of the same sax can marry.  I say love's better than hate...let them get married.  It doesn't make me any less married if two men get married.  I do think that if the constitutionality (sp?) of this were to be addressed, the 10th Amendment would apply.  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "  This tells me that it would be up to the people of California to decide if they want gay marriage to be legal or not, so I guess putting it on the ballot makes the most sense.  Good luck!