Prop 8 again rears its ugly head - or government cannot keep out of marriages...
By mommyboo
@mommyboo (13174)
United States
May 27, 2009 11:10am CST
I'll keep this short. The same superior court that actually voted in favor of bringing the whole Prop 8 issue to the table the first time (in favor of equality) has now taken a couple hundred steps back into the stone age and decided to uphold the discriminatory practice of telling people that government can indeed 'define' and 'decide' who is allowed to get married.
Once again - if you ARE in favor of marriage only being man/woman, do you feel threatened as if someone would actually force you to marry your gender? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, yet FEAR is a great motivator for the huge 'mob mentality' people who are against gay marriage have. Oh, and I realize you may not like the term GAY MARRIAGE either but there it is, and it's an acceptable term - since you always feel you can't just call it 'marriage' and be done with it.
Why are we accepting government horning in on something they shouldn't be touching with a ten foot pole? Please bring your ideas to the table WITHOUT injecting your religious beliefs. If you have a personal reason for or against OTHER than religion, I'm open to it. I do not want this discussion turning into a judge/preach/hatefest.
4 people like this
10 responses
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
27 May 09
At the moment, the best we can hope for is for the majority of California voters to magically grow a brain and learn how to think for themselves before the next election. Chances are, the courts won't help us on this - we'll have to take it to the ballot box. Hopefully by that time enough kids have hit 18 that they'll be able to even out the score.
2 people like this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
28 May 09
I know how I voted and I know how I'll vote every time - in favor of absolute equality which is that anybody should be able to marry their life partner regardless of gender, and that gender should have nothing to do with any definition of anything and that all partnerships should be afforded the same social and legal benefits without differentiation or different terms.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
27 May 09
The Supreme Court of California upheld the proposition that the majority of Californian's voted on and rejected. Frankly, I don't see why every one is so angry. WE ARE IN A DEMOCRACY. This is how the system works. The issue is brought before the people, they vote, the law passes or it doesn't, it gets challenged, and the Supreme Court should back up the majority of the voters. If you want someone to blame, blame the people who voted. Don't blame the Courts for not overriding some piece of legislation that the MAJORITY of the people voted on and didn't want.
I don't want the Courts overriding the will of the people because that puts the power squarely on the government. Remember it is the people in this country that actually hold the power. If you don't like our government, than vote someone else in those seats.
You want the legislation, then you have to go back to the voters. It is clearly that simple.
Oh and I don't buy the excuse of the people didn't know what they were voting for. The legislation was clearly spelled out on the ballots for people to read. There was a ton of publicity on this Proposition before voting even occurred.
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
27 May 09
Yet, that is exactly what happens in a democracy or a republic. The majority rules. The problem is people think this is about gay marriage when in reality is about the Courts upholding a decision that the voters made. The subject of the legislation does not matter. Would it really be such a hot topic if Prop 8 was about something else? I would still expect the Courts to uphold the decision of the voters unless it was constitutionally illegal.
Economically, California is actually hurt by this decision. Gay marriages would bring in much needed revenue into the state just in the wedding industry alone.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
27 May 09
Not in a constitutional republic. The majority doesn't always rule. The majority didn't rule when slavery was abolished, or when we got rid of segregation. That was all the government's doing, despite what the majority wanted.
The outrage in this case is that equal rights is not something that should be up for vote. It doesn't matter what the people want. The people can be wrong, bigoted, and intellectually ill-equipped to make a judgment on the rights of a minority. It should not be their decision.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 May 09
Unfortunately, it seems next to impossible for anyone to give their objections without injecting religion into it. No matter what other "reasons" they come up with, it all comes back to their own view of morality. We heard the RNC Chairman Michael Steele say recently that gay marriage would be bad for small businesses! I have no doubt that was just thrown out there so those who don't want to admit they're just plain "uncomfortable" with homosexuality" would have an excuse.
I'm going to quite while I'm ahead...or I HOPE I'm still ahead...lol! Let's just say I totally agree government should stay out of the marriage issue altogether!
Annie
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
29 May 09
How in the world can any personal relationship be 'bad for small businesses' or moreover, bad for ANY businesses? Someone is stretching there. By all means, if someone is uncomfortable, they can be as uncomfortable as they want - as long as they don't get into anybody's face about it. I don't have to make them comfortable. They can stay home and keep the tv and computer off then lol. Of course they could also choose not to be uncomfortable...
@Kenorv (343)
• United States
27 May 09
Here's something for you. Why do you have a problem with democracy? This is how democracy is supposed to work. The will of the people is supposed to prevail. The people of California wanted to amend their constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The state Supreme Court decided that it wasn't unconstitutional for them to do that and they're right. The government isn't deciding what marriage is, the people are. Big difference.
Let's not forget that the original U.S. constitution only gave equal rights to white men. The only reason that it was changed is because the framers of the constitution allowed the constitution to be amended. And that's all that is going on here. The voters of California are using their constitutional right to amend their own state constitution.
Democracy is a majority rule government. People need to learn to accept that. The majority of the voters should not be ignored in this case in favor of the minority and I'm glad that the Supreme Court ruled the way that it did. This shows that democracy does work. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way then it would have been a big blow to democracy, at least in my opinion.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
29 May 09
Last time I didn't really think it would pass and so I didn't speak up until it's too late. This time I'm getting involved in advance.
@BBBuckeye1 (24)
• United States
28 May 09
Every time that a gay marriage initiative has been put to a public vote it has been defeated. Marriage began as a religious institution, one that binds a man and wife together for the purpose of starting a family, meaning specifically to welcome children into the world. Why is it necessary to force a new definition of marriage upon a society that does not want such a redefining of the institution.
In this situation, the court actually listened to the will of the people rather than forcing their will upon the voters of California. I guess it's a novel idea when a court concerns itself with enforcing the rules of law rather than promoting personal agendas.
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
29 May 09
The point is that not everybody, and at least half of the people did NOT vote nor want to define marriage that way. The problem is that about half of the people did. If you had half of the people voting to segregate again, would you be in line with that? Is something that disgusting okay? Well I consider this just as disgusting and discriminatory. When the majority is wrong, then the courts should step in and say so.
1 person likes this
@highflyingxangel (9225)
• United States
31 May 09
Marriage is not a religious institution. Jesus never said marriage was a sacrament. Marriage has always been about control and property. Men married women for property and control. The first marriages weren't even allowed to be performed in churches. They were lucky to perform them on the steps. You're taking a 21st century idea and trying to make it work for ideas from centuries before, when people then did NOT act, think or feel the same way many do today.
@PrarieStyle (2486)
• United States
28 May 09
The way I see it, it's about the Constitution. The Constitution says that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, if they keep pushing and get their way, next thing you know the Constitution will be changed on this issue.
Then we will have to change the school books and all children will have to be taught that marriage is for anyone and everything.
Next, and I heard that they already want triad marriages, which is two men and a woman or two women and a man.
Next they will want polygamy....
When will it all end and what good is a Constitution if the people aren't going to uphold it?
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
29 May 09
Nope. Saying marriage is between TWO PEOPLE is saying marriage is between two people. It doesn't say anything other than that or anything outside that, and nothing more narrow minded than that. There are hardly 50% of voters in favor of threesome marriage or God forbid polygamy, so it is pretty silly to believe that one leads to those. It doesn't and it wouldn't.
1 person likes this
@lelin1123 (15595)
• Puerto Rico
28 May 09
I agree with you the government should not be involved. I also believe there should be equality for all no matter what. I believe if two people are in love no matter gender they should have the same rights as a man and woman. This is 2009 the world needs to wake up. Gay people did not choose to be gay they as far as I'm concerned are born this way. So yes God had something to do with it. How people can't see this is beyond my comprehension.
@drsenergy (159)
• United States
28 May 09
People have a right to voice their opinions pro or con any issue they choose. Why should the issue of Gay Marriage be any different. It is a fact, that the vast majority of the citizens of this country do not want to legalize Gay Marriage and vote to ensure that our laws are clear on this issue.
