Latest Proposition 8 Poll

[_The Dude]

Four judges from San Francisco (go figure!) struck it down.

I know! Those SF judges want to destroy your family and pervert your children. Their so-called constitutional and civil rights concerns are just a cover for their perverted designs. And Governor Schartzenegger agreed with them. Go figure!

[_Jersey Girl]

Liz

Apparently there is talk about having to refer to parents as "parental units".

I remember your posting about this previously. I have done some searches online and I think the thing to do if you're interested is find the particular school district's board meeting minutes online, if they're published, to see for yourself.

If it IS true, what appears to be an attempt at political correctness is seen by me, at least, as a depersonalization of an intimate bond between parent/child. And this, from one of our school systems.

I cannot tell you how sick and sad this is.
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Another ad for something we don't want or need.

[_mentalgymnast]

Four judges from San Francisco (go figure!) struck it down.

I know! Those SF judges want to destroy your family and pervert your children. Their so-called constitutional and civil rights concerns are just a cover for their perverted designs. And Governor Schartzenegger agreed with them. Go figure!

The fact is, however, that the court struck down the will of the majority at that point in time. We'll have to wait and see how Prop. 8 turns out to see if same sex marriage really is or isn't a "right" in California.

Schwarzenegger's support? Lukewarm.

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/20 ... n-8-p.html

Regards,
MG

[_Brackite]

The last poll I saw had the "support" side winning. So I'm grateful to see these numbers, which paint a somewhat different picture.

A good friend of mine is a principal for a private Christian school in Northern California. Her main issue is that she has heard of all of the crazy rules and regulations that will be imposed on public educators. She, personally, and her school won't be affected, but her peers and those involved in the public education system will be.

Apparently there is talk about having to refer to parents as "parental units". You can't ask a child, "May I speak to your Mom, or may I speak to your Dad?"

Crazy stuff.

The Republicans have been trying to spin things as if the failure of the amendment would automatically entail these sorts of educational policy changes. But that's not the case. Constructing a public-school policy that deals with the reality of gay marriage remains a task for the future. It could end up having some silly features, but any such features will not be direct consequences of the Prop 8 vote and will be independently repealable. I cannot understand people who feel the best way to avoid a stupid educational policy is to revoke the marital rights of a minority group. If they have opinions about educational policy, they should fight those battles on their proper turf: write your legislators and your school district. Don't vote to enshrine discrimination in the state constitution!

Hi CaliforniaKid,

Back in 2004, When Mr. President George W. Bush was strongly Pushing for a new Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay Marriages in all of the 50 States, U.S. Senator John McCain of Arizona, stood up against that Proposed new Amendment. Here is some information about this, From a News Article, From CNN:

McCain: Same-sex marriage ban is un-Republican


Wednesday, July 14, 2004 Posted: 4:29 PM EDT (2029 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary -- and un-Republican.

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

The proposed amendment died Wednesday after a procedural vote to move the measure to the Senate floor failed 48-50, or 12 votes short of the 60 required by Senate rules. (Full story)

McCain said Tuesday night he would side with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote to make clear to his constituents that he is against the amendment itself.

Here is the Link to this Whole News Article:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/ ... .marriage/


I totally agree with U.S. Senator John McCain being against a new proposed amendment to ban gay Marriages in all of the 50 States.

U.S. Senator John McCain is a big and a huge supporter of the Tenth Amendment, to the United States Constitution. The People of the State of California who are Voting, have every Moral Right to either vote for the traditional definition of Marriage, of one man and one woman, or to vote for the expanded definition of Marriage, to keep allowing gay Marriages.


Here is Again the Tenth Amendment, to the United States Constitution:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... amendmentx)

[_CaliforniaKid]

The fact is, however, that the court struck down the will of the majority at that point in time.

That is one of the fundamental purposes of the Supreme Court and the Constitution: to protect the rights of minorities from an aggressive majority. In the words of Kenneth Roosevelt, "the majority is not always supposed to have its way."

According to the LA Times,

As the issue moved into the high court, Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute at UCLA's law school, which examines sexual orientation and the law, said the state's broad domestic partner law had undercut the traditional argument that children were better off being raised by opposite-sex parents.

"Taking those issues off the table, which the domestic partners act did, might have made this an easier case for everyone," Sears said. Once the state recognized the right of gays to rear children, the fight for same-sex marriage was shaped as "the right to have a family" and the ruling became "about family being protected."

The court concluded that giving gays a separate institution -- domestic partnership -- "marked gays and lesbians as second-class citizens," Sears said.

In its decision, the court appealed to "this court’s landmark decision 60 years ago in Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 7114 — which found that California’s statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional right to marry, notwithstanding the circumstance that statutory prohibitions on interracial marriage had existed since the founding of the state — makes clear that history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee."

The bottom line in the court's decision was that since the state already recognized the right of homosexual couples to have more or less all the substantive rights accorded heterosexual couples, and since the state had officially recognized homosexual families as such, the Constitutional protection of families extended to homosexual families as well as to heterosexual families. And since the distinction between marriages and domestic partnerships has the effect of marking homosexual families off as second-class citizens, retaining the distinction would, "as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."

So you see, what it really came down to for the court was a question of "separate but equal". California voters wanted to maintain a verbal separation on the grounds that such a separation was purely formal, and did not violate the protections afforded to homosexual families. The court followed in the old American legal tradition according to which separate is never equal, especially when-- as in this case-- the purpose of the separation is generally understood by both sides to be the maintenance of boundaries between different classes of people, one of which has often been the target of hate crimes that zero in on its separate identity.

In short, Proposition 8 would re-establish a verbal distinction that the court has ruled to be harmful to legally-protected families. What's more, it would actually enshrine that verbal difference in the Constitution of our state, thereby making it immune to future judicial review. I am not comfortable with having something that even potentially harms families enshrined in our Constitution. If the court has found that all families have the right to equal dignity and protection under the law, I want nothing to do with the kind of majority that thinks it has "every moral right" to partially revoke that dignity and protection in the name of its own parochial, sectarian interests.

[_Brackite]

The People of the State of California, Who are Voting, Do indeed have every legal right and the moral right to decide if they support the traditional view and standard definition of Marriage, as one man and one woman, or the expanded definition of Marriage.
I do Not agree and believe that only four out of seven Judges, should decide and have the final and the last say, in changing (expanding) what the definition of Marriage is for a State with a Population of over 35 Million People.
I would Not agree and respect that only four out of seven Judges got to have the final and the last say on what the definition of Marriage is.
Proposition 8 has the Constitutional right, and every legal right to be on the California November Ballot.
Whether or not the Majority of Californian voters decide to accept or to reject Proposition 8, I will Respect the decision and the will of the voters of California in regards to Proposition 8.
I am a very strong believer in Democracy, and along with that, I am a very, very strong believer in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[_mentalgymnast]

The fact is, however, that the court struck down the will of the majority at that point in time.

That is one of the fundamental purposes of the Supreme Court and the Constitution: to protect the rights of minorities from an aggressive majority. In the words of Kenneth Roosevelt, "the majority is not always supposed to have its way."

According to the LA Times,

As the issue moved into the high court, Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute at UCLA's law school, which examines sexual orientation and the law, said the state's broad domestic partner law had undercut the traditional argument that children were better off being raised by opposite-sex parents.

"Taking those issues off the table, which the domestic partners act did, might have made this an easier case for everyone," Sears said. Once the state recognized the right of gays to rear children, the fight for same-sex marriage was shaped as "the right to have a family" and the ruling became "about family being protected."

The court concluded that giving gays a separate institution -- domestic partnership -- "marked gays and lesbians as second-class citizens," Sears said.

In its decision, the court appealed to "this court’s landmark decision 60 years ago in Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 7114 — which found that California’s statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional right to marry, notwithstanding the circumstance that statutory prohibitions on interracial marriage had existed since the founding of the state — makes clear that history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee."

The bottom line in the court's decision was that since the state already recognized the right of homosexual couples to have more or less all the substantive rights accorded heterosexual couples, and since the state had officially recognized homosexual families as such, the Constitutional protection of families extended to homosexual families as well as to heterosexual families. And since the distinction between marriages and domestic partnerships has the effect of marking homosexual families off as second-class citizens, retaining the distinction would, "as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."

So you see, what it really came down to for the court was a question of "separate but equal". California voters wanted to maintain a verbal separation on the grounds that such a separation was purely formal, and did not violate the protections afforded to homosexual families. The court followed in the old American legal tradition according to which separate is never equal, especially when-- as in this case-- the purpose of the separation is generally understood by both sides to be the maintenance of boundaries between different classes of people, one of which has often been the target of hate crimes that zero in on its separate identity.

In short, Proposition 8 would re-establish a verbal distinction that the court has ruled to be harmful to legally-protected families. What's more, it would actually enshrine that verbal difference in the Constitution of our state, thereby making it immune to future judicial review. I am not comfortable with having something that even potentially harms families enshrined in our Constitution. If the court has found that all families have the right to equal dignity and protection under the law, I want nothing to do with the kind of majority that thinks it has "every moral right" to partially revoke that dignity and protection in the name of its own parochial, sectarian interests.

I don't see anything here in regards to the effect that enabling same sex marriage partnerships would have on religious practice. If the scope of this conflict was confined within the realm of simply putting the status of same sex marriages on par with traditional marriages and providing homosexual marriages with the "substantive [states] rights accorded heterosexual couples", I'm not sure that there would be the hoopla that has been a result of the same sex marriage movement in various states. The problem as I see it, are the ramifications that a change in the law can potentially have on religious practice in regards to a particular religious institution's emphasis on traditional marriage and the rituals that are part and parcel of a church's marriage traditions/practices.

In other words's, why do you think that the LDS church is so involved in this Prop. 8 contest? What is the deep down real motivation to put themselves on the line on this one? Is it a strictly homophobic agenda that's propelling them to do what they're doing? Is it strictly the effect that the church feels that legalizing same sex marriage partnerships would ultimately have on the traditional family? Or is is something more than either one or both of these? If so, what is it that is REALLY being discussed behind closed doors in SL?

I think that a number of religious organizations, including the LDS church are looking at issues coming down the pike where accommodations would have to be made to conform with state regulations that would interfere or disrupt private religious practice[s].

Regards,
MG

[_The Dude]

In other words's, why do you think that the LDS church is so involved in this Prop. 8 contest? What is the deep down real motivation to put themselves on the line on this one? Is it a strictly homophobic agenda that's propelling them to do what they're doing? Is it strictly the effect that the church feels that legalizing same sex marriage partnerships would ultimately have on the traditional family? Or is is something more than either one or both of these? If so, what is it that is REALLY being discussed behind closed doors in SL?

I think that a number of religious organizations, including the LDS church are looking at issues coming down the pike where accommodations would have to be made to conform with state regulations that would interfere or disrupt private religious practice[s].

So you are saying that what the LDS church and other churches really fear is that their right to religious freedom would be infringed upon by allowing the right for homosexuals to marry. I wonder what accommodations you are thinking of, what infringment of private religious practices.

No, I don't see this as a credible argument. Freedom of religion has no credible relationship with the gay marriage situation. You aren't going to have to marry anyone in an LDS temple that can't get married there now. You can still teach that homosexual behavior is wrong in God's eyes and restrict them from doing whatever you want in your church. Nobody is going to take that away from you. Instead, it is you who wants to take away marriage, to guard it as a legally protected religious symbol for one class and segment of society. That's what it boils down to.

[_Ray A]

No, I don't see this as a credible argument. Freedom of religion has no credible relationship with the gay marriage situation. You aren't going to have to marry anyone in an LDS temple that can't get married there now. You can still teach that homosexual behavior is wrong in God's eyes and restrict them from doing whatever you want in your church. Nobody is going to take that away from you. Instead, it is you who wants to take away marriage, to guard it as a legally protected religious symbol for one class and segment of society. That's what it boils down to.

I agree. As I have said before, the once persecuted, have now become the persecutors.

I don't believe that any fundamental rights of Mormons will be taken away. Catholic institutions can still discriminate in who they hire, that is, those who agree to abide by their beliefs. The Mormons, according to BYU policy, can still deny Chad Hardy his graduation certificate, and remain a credited university. Yet they want to deny civil rights to a minority. I can only cynically ask, what more do you want? The complete domination of America, a theocracy which mandates "morality"?

I think Mormons need to step back, and maybe sometimes ask why they sometimes get so much opposition.

It's self-inflicted.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Exactly. In twenty years, we'll all look back and laugh about these shrill, ill-informed prophecies that Mormons will be forced to perform gay temple weddings at gunpoint. Nobody's going to take away Mormons' rights if Prop 8 fails. And if anybody tries, I will gladly advocate for you just as I have done for homosexuals.