The gay-marriage battle: Follow the money

[_neworder]

Here is a interesting page the shows the money that has been raised (for and against) for Proposition 8 in California

The gay-marriage battle: Follow the money

Total Amounts Raised

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Here is a interesting page the shows the money that has been raised (for and against) for Proposition 8 in California

The gay-marriage battle: Follow the money

Total Amounts Raised

Well, whatta ya know. Our very own rcrocket gave $5,100 in support of the homophobic and vile Prop. 8. Well done, Bob.

[_scipio337]

Here is a interesting page the shows the money that has been raised (for and against) for Proposition 8 in California

The gay-marriage battle: Follow the money

Total Amounts Raised

Well, whatta ya know. Our very own rcrocket gave $5,100 in support of the homophobic and vile Prop. 8. Well done, Bob.

What on earth is "homophobic" about it?

You do know that CA already had domestic partnerships that has

"the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses"...

right??


Its this kind of hyperbole that disgusts the average voter.

[_Some Schmo]

What on earth is "homophobic" about it?

LOL... seriously?

Hmmm... according to wiki, Prop 8:

If passed it would amend the California Constitution with a new section that would read "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Sounds pretty homophobic to me.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What on earth is "homophobic" about it?

Here is how the question will be worded on the ballot in California this November (bold mine):

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Same-sex couples are currently allowed by constitutional law to marry in California. Amending the California Constitution to eliminate this constitutional right is as homophobic as it gets, in my opinion.

[_scipio337]

What on earth is "homophobic" about it?

Here is how the question will be worded on the ballot in California this November (bold mine):

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Same-sex couples are currently allowed by constitutional law to marry in California. Amending the California Constitution to eliminate this constitutional right is as homophobic as it gets, in my opinion.

That was the court's decision, so this is the current court's interpretation of CA constitutional law.

I'm not sure where you delineate the "fiscal impact".

And this would affect CA's domestic partnership laws, how?

CA Family Code Section 297.5

Yes, Californians are so vehemently homophobic that they voted in one of the most progressive domestic partnership laws in the country. They also want to protect the institution of marriage (whether for secular or religions reasons).

Damn homophobes!

(but isn't it nice to paint everyone who doesn't believe in your political weltanschauung as some type of monster, isn't it?)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

That was the court's decision, so this is the current court's interpretation of CA constitutional law.

Of course, the good citizens of California decided the CA Supreme Court should interpret the CA Constitution ... so it did.

I'm not sure where you delineate the "fiscal impact".

I didn't -- that's just part of the exact wording of the ballot question.

And this would affect CA's domestic partnership laws, how?

Read the CA Supreme Court's decision finding CA's DOMA law unconstitutional -- they go into great detail.

Yes, Californians are so vehemently homophobic that they voted in one of the most progressive domestic partnership laws in the country.

Only after Prop. 22 was passed (and the right wingers placated for a time). I applaud the CA legislature for being so progressive, but it wasn't enough under the CA Constitution, which the court found. Now, it's up to the good citizens of CA to keep homophobic amendments out of the state constitution.

[_scipio337]

That was the court's decision, so this is the current court's interpretation of CA constitutional law.

Of course, the good citizens of California decided the CA Supreme Court should interpret the CA Constitution ... so it did.

Which doesn't mean such a decision could be overturned.

Read the CA Supreme Court's decision finding CA's DOMA law unconstitutional -- they go into great detail.

I have. No noticable affect. There will be no rights under the current "marriage" provision that were denied under the previous domestic partnership law. Oh, the name of said social contract will be different. A strike for gay rights everywhere!

Until those breeders are forced to call my domestic partnership with identical rights "marriage" instead of "domestic partnership", is any one of us free?

Yes, Californians are so vehemently homophobic that they voted in one of the most progressive domestic partnership laws in the country.

Only after Prop. 22 was passed (and the right wingers placated for a time). I applaud the CA legislature for being so progressive, but it wasn't enough under the CA Constitution, which the court found. Now, it's up to the good citizens of CA to keep homophobic amendments out of the state constitution.

There are 19 or so states with such "homophobic amendments". Why? Because of decisions like the CA one. The only protection a consensus has from a runaway court is the amendment process.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Which doesn't mean such a decision could be overturned.

That's exactly what it means ... unless you amend the Constitution. And amending the Constitution to take away what has already been found to be a fundamental constitutional right, in this case same-sex marriage, is fueled by nothing other than homophobia.

Read the CA Supreme Court's decision finding CA's DOMA law unconstitutional -- they go into great detail.

I have. No noticable affect. There will be no rights under the current "marriage" provision that were denied under the previous domestic partnership law. Oh, the name of said social contract will be different. A strike for gay rights everywhere!

See footnote 24 on pages 42-44 of the decision (discussing 9 differences between marriage and domestic partnership laws).

There are 19 or so states with such "homophobic amendments".

An apt description.

Because of decisions like the CA one. The only protection a consensus has from a runaway court is the amendment process.

Since when did homophobia or any kind of discrimination become in need of protection?

[_GoodK]

Civil unions between same-sex couples are not recognized by the federal government, nor do they offer all of the 1,000 plus benefits married couples enjoy.

Hardly an acceptable alternative.