This is disgraceful

[Dumpy]

Yea and you know whats absolutely stupid about that. It is illegal for them to marry multiple partners. But I can have 18 girlfriends with kids, all at the same place, and there is nothing they can do about that.
.

It was part of a deal to ensure statehood for Utah. As I understand it, the problem was that the Mormons were running out of women to marry (well, duh), and so were raiding nearby settlements and kidnapping young girls and young women. It had to be brought to an end.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Ed, the State Constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. That was the basis of the State Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality. If the State Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then you cannot have a right for people of one sexual orientation that is denied to individuals of another. That is why it took a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.

Incidentally, it has nothing to do with any church. Religious bodies can and do decide whom they will marry. Catholic priests will not marry divorced people and most rabbis won't marry a mixed couple, although both types of marriage are perfectly legal in civil law. What this hate law does do is remove from those clergy who do marry same sex couples the right to follow their conscience and their interpretation of their faith.

It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and vote for hate. I saw the celebrations last night. The joy and unity. An hour later, it was as if those celebrants were telling me "oh, but you're not part of it". Obama in his speech referred to his wife as the love of his life and his best friend. That was how Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon referred to each other for 55 years. They finally had legal recognition for two months before Del died. It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and dance on her grave. In his speech, Obama referred to his love for his children. It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and deny the children of gay and lesbian couples the protection of having married parents (and for all the "protect children from horrible gays" crap, gays and lesbians will continue to be parents, they just won't have legal rights to protect their children). In his speech, the new president was inclusive, referring to Black, white, Asian, Latino, Native American, gay and straight, men and women, old and young, disabled and non-disabled. It is sickening that people can listen to that speech and say that gays should be removed from the description of American. California passed a law, which I support, to protect farm animals. It is sickening that people in my state can vote to protect the rights of animals, but take away my cousin's marriage.

There is only one real reason for saying some people should be denied a right that you take for granted for yourself. Bigotry.

again, where is the discrimination? All rights are the same. Its just the term "marriage" isn't the correct terminology used when homosexuals choose to have a civil union. All rights are preserved, there is no discrimination.

 

[Shooter]

Religion has brain-washed many people.

And many more have been brainwashed by atheism and secularism.

People who want to restrict the right of others based on innate characteristics are bigots

You should have defended Jeffrey Dahmer. His "innate characteristics" that led him to murder young boys were definitely restricted by his prison sentence.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

there is a whole lotta California and a good proportion of the population lives outside of the major cities. Most of these rural communities are pretty blue so I wasn't that surprised to see this pass.

The thing of note about this measure is that a majority of the 30M in funding for the the YES vote was supplied by the Mormon church... seems a strange way for a tax exempt entity from outside the state to behave. Their ads were typically fear mongering/distortions of facts POS.

STOMP

In Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernadino and San Diego county, it passed. Those are major counties of LA and San Diego, not "rural" as you would think.

 

[hasoos]

It was part of a deal to ensure statehood for Utah. As I understand it, the problem was that the Mormons were running out of women to marry (well, duh), and so were raiding nearby settlements and kidnapping young girls and young women. It had to be brought to an end.

Ha ha ha that is so funny, yet so typical. Mormon: Were out of women! Mormen2: "Lets go attack some people and steal their women, that is so Christian." Mormen: Saddle up!

People are always religious until it doesn't suit their needs.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Ha ha ha that is so funny, yet so typical. Mormon: Were out of women! Mormen2: "Lets go attack some people and steal their women, that is so Christian." Mormen: Saddle up!

People are always religious until it doesn't suit their needs.

People are always tolerant of others until it doesn't suit their needs.

 

[huevonkiller]

Yeah, it was just semantics when African-Americans had to sit in the back of the bus, or use a different fountain.


Equal and separate is not equal.

Actually I am indifferent as to who does or doesn't get married, but that is a bad analogy in my opinion. You are generalizing the term "separate but equal", which refers to all sorts of facilities that minorities were not allowed to enter decades ago. The proposition was about what a single word means, which is completely different and not comparable. Certainly people that are full of hate voted for this proposition as well, but that doesn't mean Xericx is bigoted or anything. That seems like quite a harsh conclusion and he's trying to articulate his point reasonably at least.

 

[Minstrel]

You should have defended Jeffrey Dahmer. His "innate characteristics" that led him to murder young boys were definitely restricted by his prison sentence.

That wasn't even a clever attempt at wordplay. You simply quoted my words and then listed a chosen action, not an innate characteristic. Being a Republican is not an innate characteristic, nor is being a murderer.

 

[maxiep]

Ed, the State Constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. That was the basis of the State Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality. If the State Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then you cannot have a right for people of one sexual orientation that is denied to individuals of another. That is why it took a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.

Incidentally, it has nothing to do with any church. Religious bodies can and do decide whom they will marry. Catholic priests will not marry divorced people and most rabbis won't marry a mixed couple, although both types of marriage are perfectly legal in civil law. What this hate law does do is remove from those clergy who do marry same sex couples the right to follow their conscience and their interpretation of their faith.

It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and vote for hate. I saw the celebrations last night. The joy and unity. An hour later, it was as if those celebrants were telling me "oh, but you're not part of it". Obama in his speech referred to his wife as the love of his life and his best friend. That was how Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon referred to each other for 55 years. They finally had legal recognition for two months before Del died. It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and dance on her grave. In his speech, Obama referred to his love for his children. It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and deny the children of gay and lesbian couples the protection of having married parents (and for all the "protect children from horrible gays" crap, gays and lesbians will continue to be parents, they just won't have legal rights to protect their children). In his speech, the new president was inclusive, referring to Black, white, Asian, Latino, Native American, gay and straight, men and women, old and young, disabled and non-disabled. It is sickening that people can listen to that speech and say that gays should be removed from the description of American. California passed a law, which I support, to protect farm animals. It is sickening that people in my state can vote to protect the rights of animals, but take away my cousin's marriage.

There is only one real reason for saying some people should be denied a right that you take for granted for yourself. Bigotry.

I'm truly sorry for the impact this vote has on your life. I think about my friend who just moved from NYC to Palo Alto and how his decade-long relationship with his partner is somehow less than a shotgun wedding. We don't agree on much, but we do agree on this issue. This vote disgusts me like raisins and mayonnaise disgust you.

 

[maxiep]

It was part of a deal to ensure statehood for Utah. As I understand it, the problem was that the Mormons were running out of women to marry (well, duh), and so were raiding nearby settlements and kidnapping young girls and young women. It had to be brought to an end.

I understood it to be the opposite situation. So many men had died at the hands of Indian attacks on the way from Nauvoo, IL to the Great Salt Lake that men taking multiple wives was the only way for all the women to be cared for and to rebuild the numbers of the Mormons. Of course, I'm not LDS, so I could easily be wrong. I'm just passing along what I had previously understood.

 

[huevonkiller]

Ed, the State Constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. That was the basis of the State Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality. If the State Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then you cannot have a right for people of one sexual orientation that is denied to individuals of another. That is why it took a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.

Incidentally, it has nothing to do with any church. Religious bodies can and do decide whom they will marry. Catholic priests will not marry divorced people and most rabbis won't marry a mixed couple, although both types of marriage are perfectly legal in civil law. What this hate law does do is remove from those clergy who do marry same sex couples the right to follow their conscience and their interpretation of their faith.

It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and vote for hate. I saw the celebrations last night. The joy and unity. An hour later, it was as if those celebrants were telling me "oh, but you're not part of it". Obama in his speech referred to his wife as the love of his life and his best friend. That was how Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon referred to each other for 55 years. They finally had legal recognition for two months before Del died. It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and dance on her grave. In his speech, Obama referred to his love for his children. It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and deny the children of gay and lesbian couples the protection of having married parents (and for all the "protect children from horrible gays" crap, gays and lesbians will continue to be parents, they just won't have legal rights to protect their children). In his speech, the new president was inclusive, referring to Black, white, Asian, Latino, Native American, gay and straight, men and women, old and young, disabled and non-disabled. It is sickening that people can listen to that speech and say that gays should be removed from the description of American. California passed a law, which I support, to protect farm animals. It is sickening that people in my state can vote to protect the rights of animals, but take away my cousin's marriage.

There is only one real reason for saying some people should be denied a right that you take for granted for yourself. Bigotry.

I understand how upsetting this may be for some people, but aren't they also being a bit broad with their accusations as well? Why can't it just be a difference of opinion in semantics, in certain cases? Maybe caring too much about the definition of the word is an absolute waste of time, but I wouldn't pick on someone like Xericx who genuinely seems to base this vote simply on semantics.

 

[GMJ]

[video=youtube;H6p_aESYqtg]

 

[crandc]

again, where is the discrimination? All rights are the same. Its just the term "marriage" isn't the correct terminology used when homosexuals choose to have a civil union. All rights are preserved, there is no discrimination.

Civil unions do not confer all the rights of marriage.

The discrimination is that a heterosexual can marry whom he/she chooses (as long as the person is a legal adult, not married to anyone else at the time) but a gay man or lesbian cannot. Since legal marriage confers literally hundreds of rights and responsibilities under state and federal law, that is discrimination. How much clearer can it be?

If you want a spouse to inherit the home you both share, do nothing. Your property taxes won't change. If a gay man or lesbian wants the same, they need a legal power of attorney and then have property taxes re-assessed. If you want to adopt your spouse's children, you may do so automatically. A gay man or lesbian cannot. If your spouse is unconscious or othewise not able to make medical decisions, you may do so. A gay man or lesbian cannot. If your spouse is in prison, you may visit. A gay man or lesbian cannot. If your spouse is in intensive care, you may visit. A gay man or lesbian cannot. If your spouse is a noncitizen, he/she can apply for citizenship based on the marriage. A civil union partner cannot. If you die, your spouse gets your pension and social security automatically. A civil union partner needs a legal power of attorney which can be challenged by the deceased's biological relatives.

That enough?

 

[lukewarmplay]

Sounds to me like the state should get out of the business of validating marriages altogether, and solely provide civil unions.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Civil unions do not confer all the rights of marriage.

The discrimination is that a heterosexual can marry whom he/she chooses (as long as the person is a legal adult, not married to anyone else at the time) but a gay man or lesbian cannot. Since legal marriage confers literally hundreds of rights and responsibilities under state and federal law, that is discrimination. How much clearer can it be?

That enough?

No, not even close to enough, you're totally avoiding the fact that a domestic partnership in California is IDENTICAL to a marriage in california. The only difference is the name.

In California, a domestic partnership has all the rights under state law, but not FEDERAL law, which is not going to change even with gay marriage in California. This was a state measure, and its implications would be felt under the state only. Essentially NOTHING would have changed, the marriage would not be recognized in other states, only in California, which would be EXACTLY THE SAME AS A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP, aside from the name alone.


As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:

* Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
* Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
* Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
* Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
* Sick care and similar family leave
* Stepparent adoption procedures
* Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
* Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
* Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
* The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
* Access to some survivor pension benefits
* Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
* The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
* The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
* Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
* The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
* The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

Full text if you've bothered to read it.

Registered domestic partners shall have 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.

A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death
of the other partner, shall have 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 a widow or a widower.

The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners
with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those
of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving
registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of
them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.

No public agency in this state may discriminate against any
person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered
domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are
registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing
in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care
plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part
3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

so please, inform me what rights are being taken away?

 

[BengalDuck]

The right to get married?

 

[Denny Crane]

What rights are being denied or taken away?

The right to be married in California and have that marriage (and all the rights associated with it) recognized by Texas.

 

[Ed O]

There was no activism. The "previously stated will of the people" was unconstitutional at the time. The purpose of the state Supreme Court is to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.

Declaring something unconstitutional is not a blanket argument against lack of activism.

Roe v. Wade is a class case of judicial activism, and the right that was carved out by the Supreme Court was done by making illegalization of abortion in certain circumstances unconstitutional.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Ed, the State Constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. That was the basis of the State Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality. If the State Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then you cannot have a right for people of one sexual orientation that is denied to individuals of another. That is why it took a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.

Thanks, crandc, for educating me on this. I was not aware, and (given this) it would appear that my statement of judicial activism in overturning the 2000 proposition through judicial activism was incorrect.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

The right to be married in California and have that marriage (and all the rights associated with it) recognized by Texas.

I'm not sure that full faith and credit would apply to same-sex marriages. I doubt that it would for long, in any case, because if Texas didn't have a mini-DOMA, they would shortly thereafter.

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not sure that full faith and credit would apply to same-sex marriages. I doubt that it would for long, in any case, because if Texas didn't have a mini-DOMA, they would shortly thereafter.

Ed O.

Article IV of the US Constitution

<emp>Section 1.</emp> Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

<emp>Section 2.</emp> The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[MARIS61]

That's what happens when you let 20 million CATHOLIC illegal aliens vote.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

The right to get married?

Incorrect. The right to call a domestic partnership using the term "marriage". They offer the same exact rights and protections as far as California is concerned.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

The right to be married in California and have that marriage (and all the rights associated with it) recognized by Texas.

Again, its the right to use the term MARRIAGE. Rights are not being taken away, other than semantics usage. as for that being recognized in Texas, that's a states issue in the time being.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Thanks, crandc, for educating me on this. I was not aware, and (given this) it would appear that my statement of judicial activism in overturning the 2000 proposition through judicial activism was incorrect.

Ed O.

There is no discrimination. Its merely the choice of wording of the term domestic partnership vs. marriage.

Again, no real rights are being taken away here. They are exactly similar, but called different terms.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

what now!?
what?!

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

what now!?
what?!

So they're separate but equal, what's the big deal; right?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

So they're separate but equal, what's the big deal; right?

Nope. If you are using the previous use of "separate but equal", you will find that all rights are IDENTICAL, which was clearly not the case in the actual usage of the term in which blacks were not allowed to use white schools, fountains, etc.

The only difference is just a different term for the union. Marriage vs. Domestic Partnership. That's it. All rights, as far as California is concerned, remain intact. The rights are not "separate, but equal", they are equal. Its just a different term used.

 

[GMJ]

rights are not "separate, but equal", they are equal. Its just a different term used.

"different term used." That's clever.

Rights are not "separate, but equal," they are equal. It's just separate.