Comments on: Some Speculation On Proposition 8

By: boxcarboy6

boxcarboy6 — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:44:12 +0000

We need to maintain reasonable perspective. At the bare bones of this issue there is only one reason why prop 8 should be thrown out. We are all equal and no one can dismiss that fact.
Should we revert back to hating one another for because of our differences? I think not.
Let us step into the future united by our equality and leave fear and hate behind.

By: lampadas

lampadas — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:54:57 +0000

It seems people are confusing “democracy” with “mob rule.” We live in a DEMOCRACY. The big difference between democracy and mob rule is the ability of judges to step in and say, “Wait. This vote infringes on the basic rights of other citizens.” Suppose Prop 8 had said it's illegal for Catholics to be employed in California or it's illegal for Mormons to attend public school in California? Does anyone really believe that would stand up to a legal challenge? Why then have so many legal scholars said they think Prop 8 will be upheld??? I don't get it. If it is, doesn't that set a precedent for voting away the aforementioned rights from Catholics or Mormons? And on that note, if it does pass, how does one start the process to invalidate Mormonism as a recognized religion in California? Those folks have prevented over $100 million from flowing into our state due to same-sex marriage. The very least they can do is donate $100 million to California to make up the difference…

By: ioandoyle

ioandoyle — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:43:24 +0000

Over 6 million people voted in favor of Prop 8, but there are almost 40 million people living in California. I am sick to death of hearing this overzealous minority referred to as “the will of the people.” Also, let's not forget that POLYGAMY is the Biblical standard for marriage. How many married men in the Bible can you name who have only one wife? Sheesh. There is a “compelling state interest” in not allowing polygamy as one man could legally father hundreds of children, and it's impossible for one man to support hundreds of kids. Saying that same-sex marriage and polygamy are intertwined is no different than saying that if you allow people to go 65 on the freeway you can't stop them from doing 65 in a school zone and children will die. It's ludicrous. We set arbitrary limits within American law all the time.

By: valit

valit — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:58:46 +0000

Issues are looked at on a case-by-case basis. The slippery slope argument simplistically assumes that same-sex marriage and polygamy are somehow on some kind of linear progression. The case for same-sex marriage has been amply made with high courts all over the country affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry. If and when it comes to polygamy, it will be looked at independently and those in favour will have the opportunity to argue for it. But I doubt it will be enough to say: if these 2 can marry regardless of gender, why can't I have 10 wives?

By: KEWilson

KEWilson — Mon, 18 May 2009 00:13:03 +0000

I must ask how demented you must be to jump from the conclusion that allowing me to marry another woman would have anything to do with Polygamy. Really; the only arguments for Prop 8 were religion-based, and/or centered completely on misunderstanding and fear. It's truly pathetic that people believe that two people having the fundamental right to marry would affect them. If you don't like it, Fine, but What if I said I didn't like the fact that a jewish person would be able to marry? it's the same thing, at it's core; You are persecuting a select few who have no control over what they are.

By: Dreamdogs

Dreamdogs — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:16:36 +0000

I have read the May 2008 California Supreme Court decision when the court ruled in favor of Gay Marriage. The court at that time found that marriage was a "Fundamental Right" and denying a minority group to be disenfranchised from marriage violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. I am an attorney and I really am baffled by the Court. Clearly, if a ballot initiative changes a Fundamental Right i.e.. Gay Marriage how can the Court find that Prop 8's change to the Constitution is not a Fundamental change. In order to change the Constitution in a fundamental way The proposed change requires the legislature to first vote on the matter and the vote must be 2/3 of both houses, then the people vote and that vote also must be 2/3 of the vote.

Frankly, if the Court does not find this a Fundamental change we can start voting on ballots that take away rights from any group unless explicitly protected by the US constitution and Federal Law. For example we could get ballot initiatives that say:California does not recognize Mormons as a religion, No one over 50 can get married (because after all the couple could not procreate) People that have been convicted of Felony cannot get married. The list could go on and on. The Supreme Court would set a terrible precedent. The Court would be saying that a majority of people can vote on virtually anything including Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Equal Protection. Just a mere majority can start taking away everybody's rights! People should be very worried about their own rights. Just as Gay Marriage was taken away by a majority vote your rights can also be voted away by a majority vote.

Remember, up until now constitutional Amendments expanded rights. In addition, such a serious matter as taking away a Fundamental Right should never be allowed to be achieved by a mere majority. The constitution was written to protect minority groups from the will of the Majority. This would be a very bad decision.

The California Supreme if it affirms Prop 8 will look like a laughing stock and will ensure no ones rights are safe. Legally,
I find the only just decision is to do one of two things: either strike down Prop 8 or strike down all marriages. Both these decisions would square with the Courts May 2008 decision. I also hope the Court looks at what has happened in the last few months especially the Iowa Supreme Court (comprised of 7 Republican appointees ) who wrote a 68 page opinion unanimously finding for Gay Marriage. The Court sites California Supreme Court's May 2008 decision to be dispositive. Please take the time to read Iowa's decision. The Court explained all aspects of their decision. I believe that Iowa's decision was directly responsible for changing the minds of the Governor in Maine and New Hampshire who both said they were against Gay Marriage but both Governors changed their minds and have or will sign their states legislation into Law , allowing Gay Marriage.

Please send E-Mails to the California Supreme Court Justices asking them to over rule Prop 8. We cannot let a small majority take away our fundamental Rights!

By: yustie

yustie — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:31:40 +0000

following Silhouettes logic ( and i know this is a slippery slope argument but much of what he is saying is ) if we let gay people marry then polygamist will be next in line…ok fine no gay marriage no polygamy… HOWEVER say they uphold prop 8 and make it between a man and woman ONLY.. whose to say the “non-deviant” majority arent then going to come after bi-racial marriages… or marriage between blacks… (i believe someone said it best when they said “you may not be gay… but you may be next”)..i agree that churchs should not have to recognize gay marriage if they deem it to be opposed to their belief system…. however last i checked churches werent supposed to be imposing their beliefs on government issues… and another point: on nov. 4th when a very NARROW majority took away the rights of gay people to marry… gay marriage was already legal and contrary to what the supporters of prop 8 say.. there wasnt a hole torn in the space time continuum and children being taught to about gay marriage… all was well…. i would love… for just ONE of those MAJORITY to have a right STRIPPED away from them and made to feel second class to the all the “non-deviants” who treat it like a joke… the ones who allowed to get married and divorced as many times in their life as they want… whereas two people who have been together for years… and love each other a great deal… cant…

By: teh_gayz

teh_gayz — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:17:20 +0000

silhouette, sexual orientation is not sexual preference. you and your kind apparently have a lot of trouble with the definition of sexual orientation, but that is not surprising given that many of you are borderline illiterate. look up the definition, or try and read the one that i gave. i even put it in all caps for you, to make it really super easy.

when/if the dreaded polygamists have their day in court, you better have some reasons beyond, “well, we already let the gays do it, so….” regarding marriage, the gay-rights movment has asked why what's between our legs is so damn important to be able to participate in it, and we haven't gotten a credible answer from ANYONE. can you tell us why it's so important? because the “now the polygamists are coming!” crap is really, really worn out. polygamy is your problem, not ours.

By: xaliqen

xaliqen — Sat, 16 May 2009 11:36:29 +0000

Silhouette; let's assume you're actually serious, which certainly takes a lot of willpower.

Why is loving someone of the same sex in any way equivalent to wanting to enter into a marriage with more than one person?

Let me put it in terms a kindergartner can understand. There are two apples and two oranges on the table. How are two oranges in a group or two apples in a group similar to a pile of all four in a group? Aren't polygamist marriages more similar to an extended heterosexual marriage where there is one dominant male and a number of oppressed females? I should think most polygamists oppose gay marriage since they're usually crazy fundamentalists. On the other hand, I should think most homosexuals oppose polygamy since it is an unequal relationship, quite unlike gay marriage which is often more equal than heterosexual marriage due to a lack of the sexist attitudes and stereotypical gender-roles common in many heterosexual marriages.

By: valit

valit — Sat, 16 May 2009 10:11:43 +0000

“We are talking about sex and not love right?”

I didn't think we were. Do people get married just to have sex? I thought it was to share their lives together.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:36:54 +0000

“silhouette, if someone wants to open up the issue of federal rights for plural marriages, that's their issue. if they succeed, and polygamy is ever federally recognized, it cannot be exclusionary to a particular group. in other words, the government must make the institution of polygamous marriage available to any tax-paying citizen under equal access laws. what gay-rights advocates are saying–and what you don't seem to be hearing–is that the government cannot discriminate against sexual orientation when it comes to offering a benefit to its citizens. and that's what this is: SEXUAL ORIENTATION–meaning whether a person is attracted to men, or to women, or to both'~ The Gayz
******

Some people have been or are conditioned to be only sexually stimulated when multiple partners are present. We are talking about sex and not love right? So very unclear at times…and how “sex” is the qualifier for marriage…is that what you're saying? It's about sexual preference and not love between consenting adults. Please clarify..

So then polygamists, properly, are just another facet of those who don't fall under “between one man and one woman”, sexually? speaking..

It won't be long before the polygamists have their day in court. “Waiting in the wings” is a phrase that comes to mind..

By: br_political

br_political — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:32:54 +0000

Actually I hope they throw out prop 8 so we can recall all of them. You want to see shit fly can prop 8. I can go up to SF and recall these judges. The gay legals are the upper crust of society living off the sweat of the lower classes. Let me see how many married couples or single mothers working 2 minimum wages jobs are going to the funny boys access to their kids for their own sexual pleasure. You guys Fing crazy to think the general population is going to kiss your @#$ and be your sex and tax slaves. I been up in San Jose and I know joe blow ain't going for it. Stop conducting your fake polls and mostly stop believing them.

By: br_political

br_political — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:20:40 +0000

This is how the morons lost the last 2 elections, they believed their fake polls. 1st of all we did not need these last 2 elections because by definition of marriage at the writing of the state constitution it meant only man/woman. These justices never have any legal right to render any decision over-ruling the constitution. And the 18,000 gay marriages were never legal. There are plenty of people not registered and did not vote which are against gay marriage.

By: apple597

apple597 — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:42:24 +0000

I don't see how same-sex marriage has anything to do with polygamy. Marriage from a legal standpoint is about creating a family. Once you are married, you cannot marry again unless you divorce first. It's that simple. I believe that people who continually bring up the issue of polygamy are just trying to throw in red herrings. People made the same arguments when interracial marriage was up for debate, but legalizing interracial marriage did not legalize polygamy, did it? To illustrate how different the two issues are, when same-sex marriage became legal in California, it took a month to enact it from an administrative standpoint. Why? Because only the discriminatory wording on marriage certificates had to be removed, and that's about it. What about polygamy? If someone has already formed a family, adding other partners into the mix will change other legal documents and well as have tax implications. Besides, polygamy is alive and well in our society. There are religions that still practice it and religious marriages beyond the first still take place in their churches. They cannot be banned by the state, nor should they be. The first marriage (if solemnized with a legal marriage certificate) is the one that is legal when it comes to tax implications and rights of survivorship. If someone has additional members they want to care for, pay a lawyer and get a will and trust. Other than that, if the state allows an unmarried citizen to marry another unmarried citizen, there should be no discrimination concerning who you pick to be your life partner.

By: Vitabuono

Vitabuono — Fri, 15 May 2009 23:56:27 +0000

“You can't logically support gay marriage and be against polygamy.”

What? Did someone actually use the word logic in relationship to this statement? Sure you can. Unless you have a radical, right-wing, agenda. Go live in Iran for Mohammed's sake.

By: telavir

telavir — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:48:26 +0000

“This woman — who was married in the Los Angeles LDS Temple and later sealed in a polygamous marriage.”

That is actually impossible since Polygamous marriages in the LDS church were banned over a century ago. It could be possible if the first wife had died and the man then subsequently remarried.

By: Gabarus

Gabarus — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:22:39 +0000

Yeah, here's hoping it goes down in flames. One other bit of the constitution it rolls over too however, that many folks overlook, and its a shame. The USA is the only land in the world, which has a constitutional right to the “Pursuit of Happiness” guaranteed in the constitution. That is a *very* powerful right. If you were told that you were not allowed to marry the person whom you loved, and whom loved you, would you be able to pursue happiness in your life?

By: lllewis

lllewis — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:10:46 +0000

Prop 8 is clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and is also a vioaltion of the 1st with respect to legislating religious issues.

By: Gabarus

Gabarus — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:04:55 +0000

EqualityChristian : Your words are wise. You remind me of a favorite quote of mine from Susan B. Anthony; “I am always suspicious of those who claim to know so well what God wants, for it always seems to coincide with their own desires.”

By: tech33

tech33 — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:03:44 +0000

“and I support any number of people that want to get married. Why not? “

Because you know, people have sex to actually procreate, outside it's entertainment value. And a multiple people marriage is horrible for the children. Look at the polygamists in Texas.