Proposition 8

So, I'm not an American, and obviously not from California, but I have a big interest in Proposition 8. For those if you who don't know...I am a lesbian, I've been out (first as bi) for almost 7 years now. If you don't know what Prop 8 was, it was a vote in the recent election, asking if same sex legal marrage should continue to be allowed in the state of California....thus revoking the Supreme Courts ruling to allow gay marriage. It passed, but just barely, and overturned the suppreme courts decision to allow same sex marrage.


My question is: as most of us are Not in California, how would you have voted if you could have?

I don't get why people make such a big deal over this, As long as one of the guys isn't in a wedding dress let them have a "Marriage". This will only increase the job outlook for divorce attorneys!

I don't like backward proposition votes, where a "yes" vote means you're against the subject and vice versa. To me, it seems like they're trying to trick the electorate.

As far as the prop, I don't much care whom you marry, and really don't think it's the place of the government to be judging such things. So I would have voted No for the proposition, and yes for the gays marrying. Some things, to me, make no sense. Caring about whom your neighbor loves is one of them.

On a related note, I read somewhere that Melissa Etheridge is saying that she's not going to pay her taxes anymore because she feels the state doesn't regard her as a first-class citizen. I think it was Melissa Etheridge. Anyway, good luck with the jailtime you're going to snag for that. Last time I checked the government likes to throw people in jail who don't pay their taxes due to their dislike of a law or of taxes themselves.

I don't care about gay marriage...they should have the right to be as miserable as all other married couples.

not allowed to get into the religious part of this, but it can never be allowed, woman was made to be man's only companion, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

not allowed to get into the religious part of this, but it can never be allowed, woman was made to be man's only companion, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

So, what's life like in 1955?

I bet it's nifty, amirite?





The more I think about it honestly, I don't actually support gay marriage all that much, I'm just not against it or anything...it just doesn't really effect me at all, and I can't see why I would be angry gay people wanted to get married, I can't see why anyone would be all that upset about two people who love each other wanting to be married.

I have a hard enough time managing who I like. (Damn blonde chick.)

I see no reason why I should consider myself in a position to decide an issue with the gravity of "marriage" for other people. It's none of my business, and it shouldn't be the business of anyone besides the consenting adults.

yeah I think it was ethridge, I hopes they throw her in jail, the only guarantees in life are death and taxes

I hadn't heard that EL, but honestly, I would fully support her, and donate to her legal battle if she required it. I know it's still against the law, but how can you support a state/country that believes you are sick, that believes that your love for someone doesn't count.

I don't really care what they do but I think it would be strange having two fathers/mothers, which one would you call mom/dad?

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

I don't like backward proposition votes, where a "yes" vote means you're against the subject and vice versa. To me, it seems like they're trying to trick the electorate.

Prop 8 was an attempt to over turn the court ruling allowing same sex marriage. "Yes" meant you wanted to over turn the court ruling, "No" meant you didn't want to over turn it ... seems fairly straight forward to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

On a related note, I read somewhere that Melissa Etheridge is saying that she's not going to pay her taxes anymore because she feels the state doesn't regard her as a first-class citizen. I think it was Melissa Etheridge. Anyway, good luck with the jailtime you're going to snag for that. Last time I checked the government likes to throw people in jail who don't pay their taxes due to their dislike of a law or of taxes themselves.

Maybe she's not getting enough lesbian action, and a little jail time might remedy that situation.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Maybe she's not getting enough lesbian action, and a little jail time might remedy that situation.

Bown-chicka-woun-woun.

Moved to The Panel, through the power of awesomeness.

Quote:

Originally posted by sugarpie26

I hadn't heard that EL, but honestly, I would fully support her, and donate to her legal battle if she required it. I know it's still against the law, but how can you support a state/country that believes you are sick, that believes that your love for someone doesn't count.

Well, as much as I hate taxes (and actually think they're nothing more than theft in most cases) I can't support her doing this. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of laws on the books of my state and country that I vehemently disagree with. That doesn't give me the right, however, to just stop paying taxes. That's tantamount to disobeying laws that you, personally, don't feel are just, and that kind of attitude will lead to serious problems, IMO.

Basically, I agree with her stance that we shouldn't have to pay most of the taxes we are forced to do, but I disagree with her tactics and reasoning in this instance.

Quote:

Originally posted by Brownell

Prop 8 was an attempt to over turn the court ruling allowing same sex marriage. "Yes" meant you wanted to over turn the court ruling, "No" meant you didn't want to over turn it ... seems fairly straight forward to me.

Meh. It seems like a double-negative to me. Simple enough, but you're talking about the average voter. These are people who had trouble poking out holes on a sheet of paper a few years back.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

not allowed to get into the religious part of this, but it can never be allowed, woman was made to be man's only companion, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Well, if that's your reasoning, what does this have to do with the government? Separation of Church & State, you know. If my religion calls for me to have sex with young children and family members and obtain multiple wives, that doesn't mean those actions should be made lawful.

Quote:

Originally posted by cooper9

I don't really care what they do but I think it would be strange having two fathers/mothers, which one would you call mom/dad?

I think you call them both mom or them both dad. I don't see much difference between this situation and a step-mother/father situation, as the child isn't related to them either, yet often refers to them as 'mom' or 'dad'

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Well, as much as I hate taxes (and actually think they're nothing more than theft in most cases) I can't support her doing this. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of laws on the books of my state and country that I vehemently disagree with. That doesn't give me the right, however, to just stop paying taxes. That's tantamount to disobeying laws that you, personally, don't feel are just, and that kind of attitude will lead to serious problems, IMO.

Basically, I agree with her stance that we shouldn't have to pay most of the taxes we are forced to do, but I disagree with her tactics and reasoning in this instance.

...

Meh. It seems like a double-negative to me. Simple enough, but you're talking about the average voter. These are people who had trouble poking out holes on a sheet of paper a few years back.

I know what you mean about just because you don't agree with some doesn't give you the right not to pay taxes, but look at it this way. I believe that marrage is a basic human right, just as shelter is. If they passed a law tomorrow saying that you could only own a home if you were left handed; how would you feel? Yes, she would still be breaking the law...but she feels that the laws of the state no longer concider her an equel.

marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story....

If this is allowed where does it end, I love my dog, can I marry her too?

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

Meh. It seems like a double-negative to me. Simple enough, but you're talking about the average voter. These are people who had trouble poking out holes on a sheet of paper a few years back.

In most cases Californians don't deviate. California uses a system that is similar to connect-the-dots. See below..


Ballot initiative: Blah, blah, blah YES <--- ---
blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah No <--- ---

When you are done it should be either...


Ballot initiative: Blah, blah, blah YES <----------
or
blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah No <----------

Much more graspable (did I just create a new word) for the majority of Californians.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

If this is allowed where does it end, I love my dog, can I marry her too?

No, but you could probably make some cash on the internet.

Quote:

Originally posted by sugarpie26

...
I know what you mean about just because you don't agree with some doesn't give you the right not to pay taxes, but look at it this way. I believe that marrage is a basic human right, just as shelter is. If they passed a law tomorrow saying that you could only own a home if you were left handed; how would you feel? Yes, she would still be breaking the law...but she feels that the laws of the state no longer concider her an equel.

Ok, that's where we disagree then.

I believe that companionship is the basic human right, and that 'marriage' is just the legal binding of two people into one legal entity. Therefore, it's impossible, IMO, for any reasonable government to infringe on the basic human rights and they're only discriminating when it comes to legal ramifications, such as tax status, joint ownership of things, survivor benefits, etc.

I guess I just classify marriage as a state granted legal privilege, in the same way that a drivers license is a privilege; whereas the act of living with another person (regardless of gender) is the basic right behind that.