Utah Billionaire donates $1 Million AGAINST Prop eight

[_scipio337]

I'm still wondering how Prop 8 would inhibit "....families deal with this and love each other..", as Bastian put it.

Remember, if Prop 8 succeeds, CA will have to go back to its draconian Civil Unions that offered "the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law" of spousal marriage.

Oh, the humanity! They really must hate teh gays!

[Anonymous]

So, people are willing to spend millions of dollars and amend the state Constitution to ensure that the "wrong" people don't use a particular word?

If the civil unions really are exactly the same as marriage in California but for the use of that particular noun, then we're even worse off than I thought. Not only are the pro-8 supporters bigoted - they're petty too.

[_The Nehor]

So, people are willing to spend millions of dollars and amend the Constitution to ensure that the "wrong" people don't use a particular word?

If the civil unions really are exactly the same as marriage in California but for the use of that particular noun, then we're even worse off than I thought. Not only are the pro-8 supporters bigoted - they're petty too.

If you see the distinction as petty wouldn't that make both sides petty?

[_Sethbag]

No, it wouldn't.

[_The Nehor]

No, it wouldn't.

Please explain.

[_scipio337]

No, it wouldn't.

Why not? That door definately swings both ways. You talk of "spending millions of dollars" on the amendment, yet willingly excuse the costly appeal process (all the way to the CA Supreme Court, which was heard after the civil union laws passed).

And yes, the civil union laws used "spousal rights" as the measuring stick.

See CA Family Code, Section 297.5

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =297-297.5


if you could explain to me which rights or priveledges were provided after In RE that weren't provided under the CA civil union code, we might be able to rationalize your overuse of " bigoted ".

[_Brackite]

Hello,

I strongly do Not agree with this Billionaire in donated that major much of an excessive amount to the 'No on Proposition 8' Campaign within the State of California. A lot of that money could've have gone to better causes and places, such as to children who are starving and don't have clean drinking water in Latin America and/or Africa. And As what Scipio337 has Pointed out here, if that 'if Prop 8 succeeds, CA will have to go back to its draconian Civil Unions that offered "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law" of spousal marriage.' I do very strongly believe that a lot of that money would've have been better spent on going to children who are starving and don't have clean drinking water in Latin America and/or Africa.

[_Tarski]

I wanted to post this on the comments section of the news article but I don't want to register:

I don't have any children with my wife. Why do people keep confusing marriage with procreation??
It isn't the same thing.
Elder Oaks, who remarried at an old age, should realize that.
Marriage is socially constructed. Sex and child birth are biological givens. Stop conflating different notions.

If you are already registered and agree with me, perhaps you can post those thoughts for me. :)

[_EAllusion]

I'm perfectly willing to let blacks have all the rights that everyone else has. I just don't think they should be called people. Let them have the same rights as people, but the law should refer to them as something else to make it clear that they are different. Hopefully, they won't engage in any petty protests when I push this through.

[_Sethbag]

No, it wouldn't.

Why not? That door definately swings both ways. You talk of "spending millions of dollars" on the amendment, yet willingly excuse the costly appeal process (all the way to the CA Supreme Court, which was heard after the civil union laws passed).

The California Supreme Court decision resulted in the requirement of local governments to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. The argument that money should be spent to reverse this, while allowing gay couples to enter into civil unions which are argued to be exactly the same thing, other than the particular choice of noun, is petty.

The passing of the civil union bill didn't change any of the facts or relevent law with respect to the existing court cases at the time.

"Separate but equal" was rejected as a valid justification for discrimination decades ago in the US. Playing "separate but equal" word games with marriage is petty, viscious, and wrong.

But let's not fool ourselves. Not everyone agrees with civil unions that are exactly the same as marriage in every respect, but for the name. Do you think that the LDS church is OK with gay people entering into full-on-marriage-replica civil unions, particularly if the law actually defines the partners as spouses? Get real. This isn't about protecting the word. That's just a desperate argument thrown out there by some factions. Many if not most of the same people who are so vehemently against gay marriage are against gay ersatz marriage/civil unions as well. The word argument is a big red herring.

...if you could explain to me which rights or priveledges were provided after In RE that weren't provided under the CA civil union code, we might be able to rationalize your overuse of " bigoted ".

The court case involved the issuance of California marriage licenses. The ruling pertained to California marriage licenses. The civil union bill, which you say passed before the Supreme Court ruled on the marriage license thing, was not relevant. It wasn't the law in dispute, and I don't believe that its passage rendered the court case moot - the California marriage license law was still as deficient as it had been when the court challenge was filed.