Proposition 8 Has Officially Passed

[MCsNo1Fn]

Re: Proposition 8 Has Officiall Passed

I can't believe that California's Constitution can be changed that dramatically by just a simple majority vote. I always thought that a 2/3 vote or at least something higher than half was pretty standard.

It's 60% before anything can be passed. I think it's funny that people are protesting Prop 8 but nobody seems to give a shit about #2 in Florida? It's sad that constitutions have to be amended this way, but it's not going to be overturned. Not until it's up for vote again.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Proposition 8 Has Officiall Passed

^ Obviously, the situation in Florida is just as important. But the difference is that gays weren't already getting legally married in Florida so it's a stronger argument in California, where they were.

There's no 60% requirement in California on a voter initiated proposition, so it can be voted down in the future by the same simple majority of votes that passed it.

It's not clear yet whether the California Supreme Court will toss it or not. Logically, because of its impact and discrimination, it does look like a revision, which would require prior legislative approval. But the previous cases have interpreted that in a narrow way to permit things like the death penalty by voter initiative alone. As the court could update itself, there are arguments both ways.

If Prop 8 survives, I think it stands a reasonable chance of being voted down in the future.

Or the issue could become moot, if Obama's plan of full marriage benefits for civil unions is enacted and, in reality, there is no separate but equal status, but the same status whatever you label the relationship. That would be a workable final or interim step (for those who still want the marriage label).

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Proposition 8 Has Officiall Passed

Or the issue could become moot, if Obama's plan of full marriage benefits for civil unions is enacted and, in reality, there is no separate but equal status, but the same status whatever you label the relationship. That would be a workable final or interim step (for those who still want the marriage label).

Now there's an idea: instead of replacing the word "marriage", add to it, so the law reads "marriage/civil union/domestic partnership/whatever".



I wonder if anyone's used "whatever" in a law before?

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

Re: Proposition 8 Has Officiall Passed

^ Obviously, the situation in Florida is just as important. But the difference is that gays weren't already getting legally married in Florida so it's a stronger argument in California, where they were.

True, I didn't look at it from that angle!

^
There's no 60% requirement in California on a voter initiated proposition, so it can be voted down in the future by the same simple majority of votes that passed it.

Really? Maybe it's a Florida thing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Proposition 8 Has Officiall Passed

Really? Maybe it's a Florida thing.

It varies by state. In Oregon, some measures have to be passed by a majority of all voters, not just those who go to the polls.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Proposition 8 Has Officiall Passed

Now there's an idea: instead of replacing the word "marriage", add to it, so the law reads "marriage/civil union/domestic partnership/whatever".
I wonder if anyone's used "whatever" in a law before?

A rose by any other name....

alliance, amalgamation, association, confederation, conjugality, connubiality, consortium, coupling, espousal, holy matrimony, link, match, mating, matrimony, merger, monogamy, nuptials, pledging, sacrament, spousal, tie, tie that binds, wedded bliss, wedded state, wedding, wedding bells, wedding ceremony, wedlock

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/marriage&

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

When they said all constitutional amendments had to pass with a 60% majority, i assumed it was the same for each state! that sucks pretty hard. At least when Florida hates gay people, they hate them in mass. Calif barely passed it. LOL

 

[Maverick]

Take a look at this video of an elderly lady who supported Prop 8 being confronted by a No on 8 crowd.

Pretty intense.

http://gatorgop.blogspot.com/2008/11/crazy-lefties-attack-old-lady-at-no-on.html


And here is some commentary under the video for everyone to keep in mind:

The comments left by some (or most) people on there made my cry. This is what people think of us? They want us dead?

 

[bluepheonix]

Originally Posted by Midnight77 View Post
Take a look at this video of an elderly lady who supported Prop 8 being confronted by a No on 8 crowd.

Pretty intense.

http://gatorgop.blogspot.com/2008/11...-at-no-on.html


And here is some commentary under the video for everyone to keep in mind:

Why do people think that you have to be yelling and abusive to be filled with hatred? I'm sorry, but that old lady quite frankly deserved what she got, she wasnt assaulted or physically harmed, but she was heckled out of there and her disgusting cross was destroyed. What an idiot, walking into a situation where emotions were high and performing an action which to any rational person would have been seen as blatantly inflammatory. Those rubbish comments on the video saying she was like Ghandi, load of bs. Hatred has more than one face, wake up and smell the denial 'defenders of the family'.

Yes its your right to have whatever opinion you like of us, but should you choose to express that opinion in a public forum, we have the right to (figuratively) smash it down with our own opinions.

 

[bluepheonix]

I also find it interesting that the people constantly purport there is no hate on the yes prop 8 side, only people peacefully presenting their opinions:

the weenie reporter has to end up the story by saying :

"a lot of anger and a lot of hate on both sides " ,

but that's a lie.

There was no anger and hate from the lady holding the cross.

The anger and hate came from the gay brownshirts .

Any sane person watching this can see who has a problem with anger and hate. It's the "No on Propl 8" people.

Especially interesting when one reads:

Typical homo-nazi savagery. To be expected from animals.

Homosexuality is demonic possession. See the above biblical references that prove God gives certain people up to this horrible punishment for their sins.

Btw, I was seriously attracted to this guy in year 2 (8ish yrs old), what was my grave sin?

I don't hate anyone. I don't hate homosexuals. I don't hate non-christians. However, I do know what the Bible says about homosexuality and these people are sadly mistaken to think they will see anything but hell for the way they are living. They better turn from their ways and seek the cross.

Right so you don't hate us, you just hate our "lifestyle", and think we are going to burn in hell unless we do what you want. Pure love right there.

Vote no on 8? Hey pillow biters, the elections over, you lost!

The yes on 8 love shines right through, love the respect imbued in 'pillow biters'.

And did you see those bunch of ninnies acting like tough guys. It makes you sick.

They all need to all go to Canada or elsewhere.
If they can not be adult and respectful to others.
I'll be glad to introduce them to my good friend "Smith & Wesson".

I'm starting to see this curious double standard the yes on 8 people are talking about!

Gay fascists terrorize two much smaller women.

These people are Haters and you don't have to listen to Haters.

I think he needs to look up the definition of fascist.

When God says not to steal or murder, everyone understands those admonitions to be loving. When God prohibits homosexuality, that admonition is also loving. Speaking against homosexuality is not "hate speech, it is love speech." Homosexual activity, like rape, incest, or pedophilia, is not a fundamental human right. In homosexuality, one person is abusing another, whether they know it or not.

AND THERE IT IS!!!! THE PAEDOPHILE CARD HAS BEEN PLAYED LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

Who are these news anchors? Why can't they get the story straight?! A lot of anger and a lot of hate on both sides? I see nothing of anger or hate on the side of that poor woman. To think that a crowd of grown men would scream at an elderly woman is an ABOMINATION that I never dreamed I would see in my country. Tolerance in the minds of homosexuals is a ONE WAY STREET. YOU ARE NOT HELPING YOUR CAUSE. YOU ARE MAKING MORE AND MORE AMERICANS ANGRY!!

But seriously, what is it with those people and the word abomination?

There will be an extra star in the elderly lady's crown in heaven. Would they have reacted this way to Jesus if he had walked among them?

I would hope someone would bitchslap jesus, power doesn't equal morality, Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

And finally

It blows my mind, this is a democratic society and the many spoke, if the vote had gone the other way it would have been okay. We have to stop falling to the minorities of this country.

This is what confuses me, how come so many Americans don't know that they do not live in a democracy, they live in a liberal democracy?

 

[Kulindahr]

The comments left by some (or most) people on there made my cry. This is what people think of us? They want us dead?

Yes, many do.
That's why the behavior of the gays in that video was despicable -- it just gives those haters more fuel.

Why do people think that you have to be yelling and abusive to be filled with hatred? I'm sorry, but that old lady quite frankly deserved what she got, she wasnt assaulted or physically harmed, but she was heckled out of there and her disgusting cross was destroyed. What an idiot, walking into a situation where emotions were high and performing an action which to any rational person would have been seen as blatantly inflammatory. Those rubbish comments on the video saying she was like Ghandi, load of bs. Hatred has more than one face, wake up and smell the denial 'defenders of the family'.

Yes its your right to have whatever opinion you like of us, but should you choose to express that opinion in a public forum, we have the right to (figuratively) smash it down with our own opinions.

If you think that old lady deserved what she got, then you don't deserve liberty. Liberty comes with obligations, and one of those is to treat your fellow men with respect.

Had I been there, I would have dropped whatever sign I was carrying, and moved between the lady and her abusers. I would also have asked the police to arrest those who took her cross and trashed it.
Then I would have told her she was daft to have come there alone like that, and asked her just how she thought what she was doing was spreading God's love... and remind her that theologians through the ages have said that those who seek martyrdom do not get its reward.

In a sort of shallow way, she was like Ghandi, but he definitely had one quality she lacked: choosing the place of battle wisely, and the manner. Of course, he never led demonstrations in favor of injustice or discrimination, either.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is what confuses me, how come so many Americans don't know that they do not live in a democracy, they live in a liberal democracy?

Actually, we live in a Republic. All the idolizing of democracy in the last couple of generations has led to this belief that the majority rules -- which is a danger the founders warned against.

 

[bluepheonix]

Actually, we live in a Republic. All the idolizing of democracy in the last couple of generations has led to this belief that the majority rules -- which is a danger the founders warned against.

Can you define what you mean by Republic, I was under the impression that a Republic described the structure of a government (eg. Republic vs Constitutional Monarchy), whereas liberal democracy described the theoretical foundations of that structure (ie liberal constitution as check to tyranny of majority, democratic elections and referendum).

 

[bluepheonix]

If you think that old lady deserved what she got, then you don't deserve liberty. Liberty comes with obligations, and one of those is to treat your fellow men with respect.

All due respect but liberty isn't a privilege its a fundamental human right under article 3 of the UDHR, I deserve it by virtue of my humanity.

I agree the destruction of her cross went too far, even if it was reasonably foreseeable, I have no qualms with the rest of it however. Freedom of speech and expression does not include a gag order on replies, and considering the nature of the rubbish she and other religious conservatives spout we have every right to non-violently reply and call their speech out for what it truly is, hate. We shouldn't destroy her right to hold such views, but we should make it socially (i.e. not legally) inappropriate for her to attempt to ingrain those views into wider society.

 

[Spensed]

If you think that old lady deserved what she got, then you don't deserve liberty. Liberty comes with obligations, and one of those is to treat your fellow men with respect.

And your point is equally applicable to the old lady and her needing to treat her fellow men with respect.

She could have staged her own demonstration away from the crowd or at a different time or she could have moved out of the obviously hostile crowd to do her on camera interview.

Instead, she placed herself immediately next to the demonstrators and baited them until they over reacted. You don't need to yell and jump around to participate in provoking a commotion.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that she and the two men mentioned in the report instigated the incident for a video record.

But. whether she did or she didn't, if she had shown respect to the demonstrators, they would have had no reason to disrespect her.

I'm not condoning how she was treated, but, I suspect she got exactly what she wanted.

 

[Kulindahr]

Can you define what you mean by Republic, I was under the impression that a Republic described the structure of a government (eg. Republic vs Constitutional Monarchy), whereas liberal democracy described the theoretical foundations of that structure (ie liberal constitution as check to tyranny of majority, democratic elections and referendum).

A Republic is a system of government where many or all of the people have a say in the running of things.
We're a constitutional Republic; the Constitution defines which of the people participate and how they do so.
We're a democracy only as a tool for the most direct way in which the people have a say. As the founding fathers made clear, democracy is a dangerous tool. They provided checks against that; unfortunately, we've tossed a number out the window.

 

[Kulindahr]

And your point is equally applicable to the old lady and her needing to treat her fellow men with respect.

She could have staged her own demonstration away from the crowd or at a different time or she could have moved out of the obviously hostile crowd to do her on camera interview.

Instead, she placed herself immediately next to the demonstrators and baited them until they over reacted. You don't need to yell and jump around to participate in provoking a commotion.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that she and the two men mentioned in the report instigated the incident for a video record.

But. whether she did or she didn't, if she had shown respect to the demonstrators, they would have had no reason to disrespect her.

I'm not condoning how she was treated, but, I suspect she got exactly what she wanted.

Maybe she thought people would behave as adults.

 

[Spensed]

Maybe she thought people would behave as adults.

Unlike her, that's exactly what they did.

They didn't harm her physically and their yelling and cross smashing was incited, and more than matched, by her own self-placement and passive aggression.

As I say, I don't condone their behavior, but, if you're looking for someone to blame, blame her.

 

[Kulindahr]

They behaved like Nazi thugs.

 

[ColorSlaughter]

Hello, Mr Godwin.