Looks and feels very similar to vista. The only real difference I saw was all cosmetic.

So I guess straight marriage is bogus too right? It's not a right either.

Marriage for anyone is a priviledge not a right. It's supposed to be about being with someone you love, instead it's a mockery. For the longest time people were also told that they couldn't marry someone of a different race than they were, people were told that they couldn't marry someone of a different religion as they are, now people are told they can't marry someone of the same gender.

As far as I am concerned the priviledge to marry should be extended to ALL or NONE. People don't want gays fighting for the priviledge of marriage, abolish marriage altogether..problem solved.

as for my previous post, I never said illegal I said unconstitutional. The justices are appointed for that reason, the ensure that the priviledges and rights of the minorities are not trampled on by the majority.

I have said it before and i will keep saying it, gays fight for the country, they work in our businesses and factories, they pay taxes, they should get the same rights/priviledges as straight people.

I never cared about getting married and never will but it should be fair for all not just for straight people.

I guess, but marriage means a lot to some people!

But...he's just started.

Section 8/HUD has over a year waiting list in my city. So, yes, people can be homeless and not by choice.

I don't get it at all. They didn't vote on your rights to marry.



The more Gay/Lesbian parents that get married, the less starving children there will be in 3rd world countries.


If you take away their marriage rights, you take away the right for them to adopt, so you also take away the right for a defenseless child to live.


Great job.



It's called the Treaty of Tripoli. We are not and will never be a religion dominated nation.

I'm not advocating in either direction on Prop 8 but here is the law...
from what I read I don't think the amendment/revision question is really an issue

from http://law.justia.com/california/constitution/article_18.html

"SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail."

note the language "an amendment or revision", and the question
of whether or not the proposition itself was valid was addressed prior to the vote.

Slow1hand quote: "it is clear that either the Legislature or the electorate
may make amendments or revisions to the constitution."

Please note that this is not accurate as stated. Please revisit the link and read Section 3. No mention of revisions only ammendments.

For clarification:

The electorate may vote on either ammendments or revisions.
Ammendments may be brought to the electorate via the Inititave process as Proposition 8 was.

Revisions, on the other hand can only be brought to the electorate by a prior 2/3 vote of the Legislature, thus approving its presentation to the electorate.

Thus if the Supreme Court finds this propostion to be simply an ammendment, it will stand.

If the Court finds it too sweeping of a change concerning the civil liberties and equal protection clauses within the Constitution that it is considered a revision of said liberties and protections, then it will be invalidated because the law concerning "revising" the Constitution was not followed. (the Legislature did not hold a prior 2/3 vote approving a revision to go forth to the electorate)

In other words people in the state of California may get together and propose Constitutional ammendments via the initiative process but they may not legally propose revisions to the Constitution through the initiative process.

Revisions require a prior 2/3 vote by the Legislature before being presented to the electorate.

The initiative process can not legally present, to the electorate, "revisions" to the Constitution.

So, in part, what is before the Court is wether or not this proposition is simply an ammendment or a revision to/of the Constitution.

This is a compelling issue before the Court concerning this proposition.
Deciding on this issue alone will determine wether or not the proposition stands.

In the arguments before the Court, the Court seemed wary, skeptical and hesitant to over turn the vote of the majority concerning the proposition.

The Court did seem sympathetic to uphold the approximately 19.000 same sex marriages perfomed while it was legal under their previous ruling however.

It could turn out that even if this propostion is upheld... there will still be approximately 19,000 legally married same sex couples in California.

At that point I suppose the Christian Right could simply wait for all of these married couples to die to scour the earth of thier "sin" but I truly sense that long before then the laws will change to provide equal rights, liberties and pursuits of happiness for all American citizens as the Constitution intended without religious interference.

The younger generations are much more accepting and tolerant of people being different than themselves. Recent polls show that Christianity is slowly erroding in its majority in our country.

These trends bode well for those who support equal rights among citizens.

Christians will continue to fight this battle and oppressed minorities will continue to fight on as well.

It has already been a long and hard fought battle between freedoms and ideaologies... much like the Civil War when the Confederacy fought to keep Blacks in slavery.

There will be dissapointments, hurts and casualties on both sides until the issue is finally settled.
It may take generations to finally be put completely to rest even as the entire white/black issue is still a work in progress in some states and minds.

Whatever the court decides... the battle will likely go on for a bit longer.

I know that both sides await the decision with passion and will mount counter attacks.

Me... I took on this issue simply because I truly believe that the Constitution of the United States of America really does stand for equal rights, liberties and pursuits of happiness.

RW

I'm all for civil unions provided they make them with FULL marriage benefits. As it stands now civil unions are only a half assed marriage. SOme states or businesses don't even consider a civil union binding and will not count your "spouse" as a spouse.

This means that you and your spouse are not entitled to the same benefits as an actual married couple. It does not, as was pointed out, contain the word marriage and thus is not truly considered a marriage by some.

I, for one, do not care about marriage as I never plan to get married, but for those that wish to wed they should have the right to marry if they so desire. This does not mean that they have to marry in a church, a jp would suffice.

it can stil be overturned if the supreme court decided that the amendment or revision makes the constitution unconstitutional.