Be Courageous - - Support Prop 8

[_krose]

It has been stated many times that a support for Prop 8 supports hate. My gay partners and employees know that I support Proposition 8. They know I don’t hate them or hate gays.

Translation via my seer stone:
"I don't hate you, I just believe you don't deserve the same rights that I enjoy."

It's really not about hate, but about the effects on your workmates of supporting such a measure. I'm sure most slave owners didn't hate their slaves at all. They just considered them unequal, and undeserving of human rights. The result was the same.

[_Some Schmo]

My gay partners and employees know that I support Proposition 8.

How many gay partners have you had so far?

That was great, Shades.

LMAO

[_Buckeye]

Rcrocket,

I have posted this question on the MADB, but would welcome your response: How best can a non-californian support the proposition? $ and offering to do phone calls are all I can think of.

Buckeye

[_Some Schmo]

# Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
# Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
# Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
# Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)

It would seem both Obama and Biden (according to the VP debate) are of the mind that they should be granted civil unions, but there's no need to call it "marriage." I actually think that's reasonable, given what homosexuals are really fighting for are the same legal rights and privileges as hetero married couples enjoy.

I mean, it's just a name, and it comes from a religious tradition at that. If I were gay, I'd want to distance myself from the term "marriage" as much as possible given religion's bigotry of gay people.

But what do I know? I'm sure there are religious gays who want their marriage acknowledged "by god." I have no dog in that fight. I think they'd get a lot farther faster by just abandoning the "change the definition of marriage" crap and go for civil unions, though. Once they have it, they can call it whatever the hell they want.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that really matters is that they get the same damn legal rights as everyone else. Period.

[_Mike Reed]

Rcrocket,

I have posted this question on the MADB, but would welcome your response: How best can a non-californian support the proposition? $ and offering to do phone calls are all I can think of.

Buckeye

I get a kick about hearing the silly argument from Mormons that this is about overturning the abuse of judicial power--judges imposing their views upon the voters of California. And yet... most of them seem ok with the Utah based Church imposing their views.

[_dblagent007]

Rcrocket,

I have posted this question on the MADB, but would welcome your response: How best can a non-californian support the proposition? $ and offering to do phone calls are all I can think of.

Buckeye

I get a kick about hearing the silly argument from Mormons that this is about overturning the abuse of judicial power--judges imposing their views upon the voters of California. And yet... most of them seem ok with the Utah based Church imposing their views.

That's the point. The church is using the democratic process. The judiciary just hands down edicts invented out of the members own policy choices. This process short circuits the democratic one.

If the homosexual lobby wins at the voting booth, then so be it. The rub is when a few robed masters rule by judicial fiat (although even the judges can't stray too far from the mainstream, which is why gays didn't receive the right to marry back in the 40s).

[_The Dude]

I get a kick about hearing the silly argument from Mormons that this is about overturning the abuse of judicial power--judges imposing their views upon the voters of California. And yet... most of them seem ok with the Utah based Church imposing their views.

That's the point. The church is using the democratic process. The judiciary just hands down edicts invented out of the members own policy choices. This process short circuits the democratic one.

No it doesn't short circuit. Judges serve the democratic process just as they are supposed to. They are chosen to interpret the laws that are set up through democratic process. Their interpretation of the state constitution is that you can't segregate people into so-called "separate but equal" classes unless you have a good reason. And the reasons presented didn't convince them.

Now, if the judges were the ones changing the constitution because of their own bigoted or religious opinions, that would definitely short circuit the democratic process. The judges aren't supposed to change the rules, just interpret them. The people are supposed to change the rules. And here they are trying.

It seems to me that the system is working properly. The garbage about judges ruling from the bench is just ignorant whining meant to energize the mob.

[_Mike Reed]

That's the point. The church is using the democratic process. The judiciary just hands down edicts invented out of the members own policy choices. This process short circuits the democratic one.

If the homosexual lobby wins at the voting booth, then so be it. The rub is when a few robed masters rule by judicial fiat (although even the judges can't stray too far from the mainstream, which is why gays didn't receive the right to marry back in the 40s).

So then, while we are at it, lets also overturn the 1967 Judicial ruling (Loving v. Virginia), which ended all marriage race-based legal restrictions in the United States. Judges "imposed" this ruling on our country too. Besides... when "God" first defined marriage, he didn't include interracial unions, did he? And have you read what your "prophets" have said about interracial marriage?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The judiciary just hands down edicts invented out of the members own policy choices.

Nope. The judiciary simply interprets the constitution established by the people, which is the judiciary's job.

This process short circuits the democratic one.

Wrong again. The people created the judiciary and the constitution, and instructed the former to interpret the latter. There is nothing more democratic than this.

[_dblagent007]

That's the point. The church is using the democratic process. The judiciary just hands down edicts invented out of the members own policy choices. This process short circuits the democratic one.

If the homosexual lobby wins at the voting booth, then so be it. The rub is when a few robed masters rule by judicial fiat (although even the judges can't stray too far from the mainstream, which is why gays didn't receive the right to marry back in the 40s).

So then, while we are at it, lets also overturn the 1967 Judicial ruling (Loving v. Virginia), which ended all marriage race-based legal restrictions in the United States. Judges "imposed" this ruling on our country too. Besides... when "God" first defined marriage, he didn't include interracial unions, did he? And have you read what your "prophets" have said about interracial marriage?

Ah, yes, I must think all judicial decisions are an unwarranted exercise of raw judicial power. Uh, no. However, the vast majority of the controversial ones are (e.g., Roe, cannot execute rapists, Lawrence, etc.).

The 14th amendment was ratified with race based legal discrimination in mind. In fact, the court distinguished its action in Loving with other cases that upheld discrimination because they were not race based.

The problem here is trying to equate race based restrictions on marriage with sexual orientation based restrictions on marriage. In the former case, the state has no good reason to do so. In the latter, there are good reasons to restrict it to one man and one woman (e.g., because it takes a man and a woman to produce children, etc.). Even if you disagree with the state's reason, it is not so far fetched as to merit being overturned wholesale by the judiciary.

At some point, the state must be allowed to define marriage. If sexual orientation is not a valid restriction on marriage, then how can other restrictions such as quantity (polygamy anyone?), relatedness (i.e., adult incest), and potentially even age and species restrictions, be valid? If the next study that comes out says that 9 year olds in sexual relationships are well adjusted, the courts won't be far behind saying that the 9 year old has the RIGHT to get married.

Most laws have valid restrictions associated with them. Marriage is no different. If the homosexual lobby wants to change the restrictions, they should call their legislators.