Homosexual marriage fails to get on California ballot

Full of Win

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Nov 22, 2007
2,615
1
Ask Apple
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63B5N620100412

Los Angeles-based Love Honor Cherish carried out a volunteer-driven signature-gathering effort after large groups decided there was not enough time to ensure victory this year, even with some polls showing more than 50 percent support for same-sex marriage.

A 150-day period to gather signatures to place the question on the ballot ended on Monday.

Courts and state legislatures have legalized same-sex marriage in five U.S. states and the District of Columbia, but popular votes have always rejected such unions, which are illegal in the vast majority of U.S. states.

California voters in November 2008 ended a summer of court-allowed gay marriage by enacting a ban on same-sex unions by a 52 to 48 percent vote. The move by the trend-setting state enthused social conservatives and stunned lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender supporters nationwide.

A San Francisco federal court now is weighing whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That battle is expected to be appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"That trial I think is the most import single event in the modern LGBT equality movement," said Rick Jacobs, head of the Courage Campaign, speaking of the gay and lesbian movement. His community organizing group considered a 2010 push but decided it was too soon.

"If the court rules that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, that is going to catalyze folks on both sides," he said.

Many gay activists are wary of the Supreme Court bid, fearing conservative justices would not support their cause.

Love Honor Cherish Executive Director John Henning said if voters overturned Proposition 8 in 2012 -- the next time a ballot measure could qualify -- it could effectively take the issue out of the Court's hands.

"I'd rather repeal Prop 8 than see the Supreme Court review it, given the current composition of the court," Henning said.
 

niuniu

macrumors 68020
The future for any society is secular and equality based. Too many throwbacks in seats of power holding us back from focusing on the necessary such as technology and the future of our planet. Equality has already been decided, if you're against it, just grind down on your teeth and count the days until you die because anything else is just time wasting.
 

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,551
695
having a drink at Milliways
The future for any society is secular and equality based. Too many throwbacks in seats of power holding us back from focusing on the necessary such as technology and the future of our planet. Equality has already been decided, if you're against it, just grind down on your teeth and count the days until you die because anything else is just time wasting.
Amen! :D
 

Shivetya

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2008
1,543
223
The future for any society is secular and equality based. Too many throwbacks in seats of power holding us back from focusing on the necessary such as technology and the future of our planet. Equality has already been decided, if you're against it, just grind down on your teeth and count the days until you die because anything else is just time wasting.
In other words, we are all fine with majority rule provided it supports our views, yet if the majority does not then they are just Luddites? This is not about people in power, this is about the Democracy in action. California is an example of why the US is a Republic. The majority can be cruel, the majority also tends to ignore vocal minorities, which in some cases is correct.

Technology will not save us. If anything it excuses more people from trying
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
In other words, we are all fine with majority rule provided it supports our views, yet if the majority does not then they are just Luddites? This is not about people in power, this is about the Democracy in action. California is an example of why the US is a Republic. The majority can be cruel, the majority also tends to ignore vocal minorities, which in some cases is correct.
BS- no it's not about democracy. This is about protecting the rights of all people. If my civil rights can be voted away, then so can yours. That is not only dangerous, it's un-American. The majority is not supposed to be able to do things like this. It's unconstitutional.

If you hate America so much, why are you here?
 

Full of Win

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Nov 22, 2007
2,615
1
Ask Apple
BS- no it's not about democracy. This is about protecting the rights of all people. If my civil rights can be voted away, then so can yours. That is not only dangerous, it's un-American. The majority is not supposed to be able to do things like this. It's unconstitutional.

If you hate America so much, why are you here?
Where exactly does anyone have the right to homosexual marriage in the constitution?
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
Homosexual marriage fails to get on California ballot
Most of the states have now said no and the popular vote is clearly against it - only the five most radical ones are pushing this issue now or have allowed it; the fact that its not even on California ballot shows that this is a dying issue.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
This may soon be irrelevant anyway if Judge Walker rules Prop 8 unconstitutional.
 

TheAnswer

macrumors 68030
Jan 25, 2002
2,531
1
Orange County, CA
Where exactly does anyone have the right to heterosexual marriage in the Constitution?
This.

Now all it takes is for some clear-thinking person(s) in power to stop issuing state marriage licenses to any couple and start issuing civil union licenses to all.

Get government out of the marriage business. Let civil unions represent the legal aspects of the union for all couples and let people do what ever mumbo-jumbo they want to have it recognized by their invisible friend.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,132
4
Where exactly does anyone have the right to homosexual marriage in the constitution?
I believe it is under the 9th amendment which basically states that the government may deny basic human rights that were not listed in the bill of rights.

Prop 8 is being challenge in courts under the 9th amendment.

It should never of been allowed to be voted on by the people. You should never be allowed to vote on some one right. Other wise we could put to a vote that all gays should be killed and say the majority of the people want you dead and well tthen all gays would need to be killed if the majority voted that way. Yes it is to the exterme end here but it makes a valid point because this is what voting away the rights of gays to get married boils down to the same type of argument. People would be in out rage if something crazy like that passed but have no problem blocking their right to get married.

This may soon be irrelevant anyway if Judge Walker rules Prop 8 unconstitutional.

It is not going to matter how Judge Walker rules because no matter what he rules it is going to get kicked to a higher court and this is not going to end until it his the Supreme court. Until the Supreme court rules on it all the lower court ruling are not going to matter because they will just be appealed to a higher court.
 

SwiftLives

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2001
1,339
240
Charleston, SC
It is not going to matter how Judge Walker rules because no matter what he rules it is going to get kicked to a higher court and this is not going to end until it his the Supreme court. Until the Supreme court rules on it all the lower court ruling are not going to matter because they will just be appealed to a higher court.
Yeah - but it has to start somewhere.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. There is absolutely no justifiable reason that homosexuals should be denied the right to wed.

Children need both a mother and father? Fine. Let's strip away the children of married service members who were killed in the war. Traditional family values? Fine. Lets go back to the tradition of fathers taking their teenage boys to brothels to teach them how to have sex. It will cause a massive rise in bestiality/incest/crime/etc.? Show me where that has happened.

I defy you to give me a reason they shouldn't marry. Just one. Because every single argument made against homosexual marriage was also used against interracial marriage.
 

CorvusCamenarum

macrumors 65816
Dec 16, 2004
1,231
1
Birmingham, AL
This.
Get government out of the marriage business. Let civil unions represent the legal aspects of the union for all couples and let people do what ever mumbo-jumbo they want to have it recognized by their invisible friend.
This probably won't ever happen. There's too much money involved for the government to voluntarily remove its finger from that particular pie.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
I defy you to give me a reason they shouldn't marry. Just one. Because every single argument made against homosexual marriage was also used against interracial marriage.
Setting aside your rather loud bombast here, there is indeed ample justification for the defense of Traditional Marriage at the state level; Cornell University Law School provides a handy summation of Marriage Laws of the Fifty States; note well each state has codified laws well within state code chapters. Such a strong institution as marriage is safeguarded at the state with long-term codified law so that participants meet basic requirements. Abridging those requirements simply so a small minority can participate makes no sense.

The slippery slope here needs be examined; changing state marriage law for one minority group not choosing to follow minimum requirements opens it up for all, not the least of these would be consensual polygamous arrangements. I fail to see defense for denial for polygamy arrangements if states allow same sex marriage! And on and on like dominoes, all the rules society has held dear for defense of marriage for generations, one of society's most basic institutions, falling. Rather, most polls of Americans reveal strong support for Traditional Marriage laws as enumerated. As co-director of Empower America, Dr. Bill Bennett, maintained: "Marriage is not an arbitrary construct which can be redefined simply by those who lay claim to it. Broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would stretch it almost beyond recognition--and new attempts to expand the definition still farther would surely follow." (Newsweek/06-03-1996) In America people are free to do as they wish within broad parameters. Maintaining traditional marriage law, a broad parameter narrowly defined at the state level, for convenience of a small group that does not qualify, makes good sense! Safeguarding marriage law is a priority since marriage remains one of society's most important and basic institutions. As others have said on this issue, "The burden of proof ought to be on those who propose untested arrangements for our most important institution," not on states that maintain basic requirements for our most important social institution.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Setting aside your rather loud bombast here, there is indeed ample justification for the defense of Traditional Marriage at the state level; Cornell University Law School provides a handy summation of Marriage Laws of the Fifty States; note well each state has codified laws well within state code chapters. Such a strong institution as marriage is safeguarded at the state with long-term codified law so that participants meet basic requirements. Abridging those requirements simply so a small minority can participate makes no sense.

The slippery slope here needs be examined; changing state marriage law for one minority group not choosing to follow minimum requirements opens it up for all, not the least of these would be consensual polygamous arrangements. I fail to see defense for denial for polygamy arrangements if states allow same sex marriage! And on and on like dominoes, all the rules society has held dear for defense of marriage for generations, one of society's most basic institutions, falling. Rather, most polls of Americans reveal strong support for Traditional Marriage laws as enumerated. As co-director of Empower America, Dr. Bill Bennett, maintained: "Marriage is not an arbitrary construct which can be redefined simply by those who lay claim to it. Broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would stretch it almost beyond recognition--and new attempts to expand the definition still farther would surely follow." (Newsweek/06-03-1996) In America people are free to do as they wish within broad parameters. Changing the fundamental marriage law, a broad parameter, for convenience of a small group that does not qualify, makes good sense in the safeguarding of marriage law that remains one of society's most important and basic institutions. As others have said on this issue, "The burden of proof ought to be on those who propose untested arrangements for our most important institution," not on states that maintain basic requirements for our most basic social institution.
Do you plan on answering my question or are you going to ignore that too?