long live "civil unions"

i say let them get married if they want . does not affect my life . they will find out they made a mistake by getting married lol

I irks me to no end that my fellow Americans don't wish me the same that they would a fellow family member or friend, but at the same time I don't need the begrudging permission from people that aren't evolved enough to know why we would want to marry in the first place.

If we have to explain that to people even in this century, then we have not evolved enough as humans to ever live side by side in peace and tolerance. People whine and moan daily that our rights are being eroded, yet many of these same people would deprive other Americans of the rights they still have. Amazes me still.

People more often than not marry for love, not because they can't wait to sign legal papers, or to be part of a state contract.

If you don't understand why gays would need the legal part of marriage, than find out. They are for the same reasons straights need the same rights.

don't assume all rednecks are bigotted. there are also biggots that aren't redneck

people should be allowed to marry without the government saying who they can marry

i'm redneck and proud

If you don't want to get married, don't. That doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to if they want to, whether they're straight or gay.

well if domestic partnership had all the benefits of a marriage we wouldn't be making such a big deal.

Domestic partnership is too confusing for everyone

lol amen!

This Proposition 8 is currently before the California Supreme Court on grounds that it was a revision of the Constitution as opposed to an ammendment.

A revision is a sweeping change that requires a 2/3 vote of the state Legislature before it can be brought to a vote before the people. I consider this "ammendment" to be more of a revision as it violates the equal protection clause of the State of California's Constitution.

If we allow voters to violate equal protection clauses written into our Constitution, then we open the door for further errosions of civil liberties, rights and protections for other unprotected or unpopular classes of citizens.

What should be duly noted here is history. Those voting today to eliminate the civil liberties, rights and protections of others may one day find themselves in the minority and face the harvest of the seeds they so willingly sow today.

To put it more succinctly... the same race, class or idealogy has not always ruled the world as the rulers of the land has changed consistently over time.

Our Constitution was designed with this in mind and if adhered to... preserve our Democracy founded in equal rights despite the rise of different majorities over time.

It should also be noted by those that do not consider marriage a "right" or a "civil right" that the Supreme Court of California struck down Propostion 22 which won support among California voters as unconstitutional and ruled that citizens did, in fact, have a "right" to marry despite the majority of voters attempting to take those rights away.

Proposition 22 was in effect for some time as a mandate that marriage was to be only recognized between a man and a woman.
It was struck down by the Court and knowing it would be, the opposition to Gay marriage began working on Proposition 8, a proposed Constitutional Ammendment.

This being said the Court has determined that the choice of who one marries is in fact a civil right protected within the Constitution.

To further flesh this out... we now have a slight majority of citizens voting to eliminate, what the Court has determined to be a right, for a minority of citizens.

The role of the Judiciary branch of government is to mitigate, ponder, consider and temper the will of the people who also once voted to keep Blacks in Slavery, deny them housing, jobs and Federal benefits based upon the notion that they were inferior and not equal in the eyes of thier God. Much of this based upon a book they wrote themselves thousands of years ago and has been interpreted in many different ways which explains the many denominations of Christianity.

If there was only one truth of a God... I suppose then there would only be one religion.

There are many religions and many Gods... and many books all "proving" that thier God can beat up your God.

Religion plays a large part in this discussion but let's simply recognize that and put it aside for a moment.

This is a Constitutional argument before the Court, not a religious one. The Constitution is designed to let all people of different faiths, races and creeds have equal freedoms, liberties and rights.

It is, in part, designed to prevent Mormons from becoming a majority and voting into law that Catholics can not marry, can only have one child or can not hold political office.

If this Propsition 8 is found to be against the equal protection clauses of citizens rights, liberties and pursuits, as I beleve it is, then there will be people moaning that thier vote did not count.

Once again... it is the Judiciaries job to monitor the will of the people based upon the Constitution. This does not make them "activist judges" but rather protectors of the Constitution and its intent of protecting the civil liberties of all citizens.

For those who will remain unconvinced of the Constitutional argument because of thier religion, bigotry or intolerance of differences... consider that you will not always be the majority.

RW

the main thing that domestic partnership lacks,
and..... this is a big BIG omission,
is the word "marriage"

Absolutely....

I'm not advocating in either direction on Prop 8 but here is the law...
from what I read I don't think the amendment/revision question is really an issue

from http://law.justia.com/california/constitution/article_18.html

"SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail."

note the language "an amendment or revision", and the question
of whether or not the proposition itself was valid was addressed prior to the vote.

I have to admit Slowhand that I really don't understand all that legal speak.

Let's face it this would not even be an issue if we actually believed that all Americans should have equal rights. It's that simple for me though I realize it's not for others.

i think that if gay people want the right to make a corporate merger with the government, why not? it's just contract BS is all if that's so important to everyone then have at it. i'm straight and i don't even want this kind of corporate merger through contracts disguised as a marriage license.

I might just agree if I understood what you mean by coporate merger with the government. How so?

our government is run as a corporation when you sign any piece of paper with them that is in the form of licensing or anything what so ever that they require your signature, you are thereby going under contract with them. when you were born, you're mother signed your birth certificate, which created a corporate entity that you as a human being would represent. this corporate entity is referred to as your person. any time you see any government type papers referring to your person, they are referring to that entity which you as a human being are representing on their records. when two people get married, they sign a contract witht the state in the form of a license. but, when you sign it you are actually signing it for your person. therefore the marriage license is an application to form a corporate merger between two persons. a lot of people don't realize that the reason the owners of a corporation are protected from lawsuits, it because they have turned their company into a seperate person when they incorporated.

Well I am still not sure I understand all that or really care about it that much considering that I don't have alot to begin with. I see this as the next generations problem to deal with, anyway.

I just read two story's of two gay female couples who were married legally, who both seperated and in the end frankly if it wasn't for the generosity of the women between themselves in the end, one party would have gotten the shaft anyway considering how little the marraige actually did for them, so I am not so sure it's all that great even for straight couples.

There are options out there to work with a lawyer to handle things with out marriage, so that's the way I am going to handle things. Everything I have with my partner is in both our names. If something happens to me it goes directly to her and and if something happens to her it goes directly to me with out courts getting involved. Hell there is probably something risky about that too, but nothing in life is guarenteed.

I agree.

There really is no equality.

Freedom for all, yeah right.