As many of you know, Prop 8 which "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" was passed in California 52.5% to 47.5%. Of course this means that the right for gays to marry will soon be made illegal. Here's my problem summarized in a few clippings from the news:

Quote:

Demonstrators took to the streets of Los Angeles for a second straight night Thursday to protest Tuesday's passage of California's Proposition 8, a ballot measure amending the state's constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, which passed by a 52 percent margin. The measure supersedes a state Supreme Court ruling that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.

Quote:

attorneys for several gay rights groups have challenged the Prop. 8 victory, filing legal papers calling on the state Supreme Court to reject the same-sex marriage ban as an overreaching use of the public's initiative power.

Typical. People love the democratic process until it doesn't work in their favor. The right for gays to wed was put to vote like everything else and it lost. I can understand not being happy with the results, hell I voted against it myself, but they're forgetting the will of the voting population, not just themselves. I'm sorry, but the buck stops here. There is no reason why the will of the fewer should have more say than the majority, even if its a personal issue like gay marriage.

Quote:

"It is a shameful day and it is a day the state will live to regret," she said.

Actually, the majority of Californians will not regret it.

get your ass to mars

Quit whining

Meh.  There is a thing called the tyranny of the minority in opposition to the majority.  This isn't an easy issue, but disrupting traffic and getting violent isn't going to sway those that voted for the ban.  Gotta keep working on the hearts and minds of people so something like this can be rejected in the future.

But the best thing that came out of all of this?


Saw some protester wearing a shirt that said, "No more Mr. Nice Gay" and I almost choked on my Dr. Pepper.

Gays should have civil unions and straights have marriage.  Make them both have all the same rights, taxing, benefits, insurance, etc.  Everything the same, except call it civil union.  Marriage is already well established as being one man and one woman union.

Why can they not just do that?

As for civil rights, those are just what those in power say they are.  Nothing is automatic or a universal truth in that regard.  Ask the chinese.

separate but equal!

Why should this not be a law?
Because it doesn't have to be a law.

Arizona passed a similar one. I'm disgusted by it.

It's not a "separate but equal" issue in the vein of the racial discrimination of the first half of the 20th century, but it is still the government making a qualitative legislative proclamation about the value and definition of two people's relationship, something I'm as strongly against as I am the liberty violation of progressive taxation on the other side.

The government shouldn't have marriage for straights and civil unions for gays; they shouldn't be in the business of making that call in the first place!  If as most people are saying, the rights vis-à-vis joint tax returns and hospital visitation should be equal, the label the government places on the unions should be the same as well.  If there's a tradition-based or morality-based judgment to be made it should be done by private organizations, religious institutions and the like.  If the Catholic church doesn't want to recognize the marriage of two homosexuals?  They're free to reject those two people's application to wed (just as my fiancee and I had to work to find a Catholic church to marry us because she is Catholic and I'm not).  The problem that morality-legislators have with that setup is that there would of course be some organization -- the New Rainbow Church or something -- that would marry them, so their personal moral disagreements with gay marriage wouldn't be able to be forced on their homosexual neighbors.  Which is exactly how it should be.

The government shouldn't be violating my rights out of someone else's definition of "fairness," and it equally shouldn't be deciding what two people can call their union when whatever they call it doesn't affect my ability to do the same.

 

so sorta like an equal but seperate thing?

 This is a disgusting argument from my point of view and simply leads back to the path of racism and bigotry that stills stains our national image, as a country and as individuals. And this IS the same thing. Or it's the same as when the majority, elected as they were, denied the rights of a colored man/woman to marry a different colored man/woman. This is ALL the same thing. You can seperate this only by denying the legality of the issue as I'm sure Endyss did (but which I never have the patience to read, such talk should be left in the courtroom/boardroom.) As long as there's a legal definition, rights cannot be defined upon characteristics of the individual. Only basis of competancy, crime, and citizenship can strip an individual of their rights as defined by the constitution. To deny any person, based on color, political party affilitation, or sexual orientation is not a valid presumption for this descrimination.

 If the government had no place in marriage, as it has no need to do so, then this would not be an issue. Any religion can and is empowered to restrict its memberships against those who they deem qualified. If christians choose to go against the message of god's love and deny gay's the chance to swear before their god the same pact of love, then so be it, it's the religious choice. But as our founding fathers (or at least the majority of them) realised, religion should not be in place with the running and rule of the state.