Congratulations to the Gay Marriage Opposition Folks

[ufojoe]

I'm always right. Just accept it.

[ufojoe]

Arizona, Florida and California voters all voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. California is still close
but it's not looking good with most of the ballots counted. The only hope for the gay rights folks is the two million
or so mail-in ballots that have yet to be counted.

Arkansas voters, "supported a measure to prohibit unmarried sexual partners from adopting children or from serving as
foster parents. The measure specifies that the prohibition applies to opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples."

What happens to the 18,000 Californian couples who were already married? Nobody knows yet.

* * * * *

Right now, gay marriage is not allowed except in Mass.

Where the California gay rights folks go now is unknown. Eventually, IMO, this is heading to the Supreme Court.

It's exciting to see a black man win the presidency in my lifetime. But equally disappointing to see the bigotry that still
goes on when it comes to gays and this issue. A ton of it is coming from the religious right.

A question for all of you: Sixty years ago, the California SC was the first court to strike down the interracial marriage ban.
If the citizens at that time had succeeded in getting a measure on the ballot (and voted for it) that would have struck
down that ruling, how many of you would have supported it? I'm not asking how many of you would have supported
the ban. I'm asking how many of you would have supported allowing citizens to vote on such things as civil rights.

[buckit]

Dumbest amendment ever. 


Let me ask supporters of this bill one question:  How does same sex marriage pose a threat to marriage, specifically?

[swirless]

I voted for the measure in Florida and the reasons, although maybe narrow minded, are because where does this marriage amendment lead, are polygamists to then be allowed to get married because that is what they feel is natural, I think that the bigger issue is that the United States including the liberal state of California is not endorsing an extreme liberal agenda and this message should ring loud and clear to the President and to the new Congress

[ufojoe]

Dumbest amendment ever.  


Let me ask supporters of this bill one question:  How does same sex marriage pose a threat to marriage, specifically?

We've been through that a thousand times and we're not going to agree with their take.

I just want to know why it's OK for citizens to vote on things that take away the rights of law abiding citizens.

So now you have to be married to adopt kids? I know people who have been together for a heck of a long time and
the state (if they lived in Arkansas) would force them to mary if they wanted to adopt?

[Fitz66]

Marriage  = Religious Act.

Government & Religion are supposed to be separate.

Where is the huge debate here?

[ufojoe]

I voted for the measure in Florida and the reasons, although maybe narrow minded, are because where does this marriage amendment lead, are polygamists to then be allowed to get married because that is what they feel is natural, I think that the bigger issue is that the United States including the liberal state of California is not endorsing an extreme liberal agenda and this message should ring loud and clear to the President and to the new Congress

Do you think citizens should have been allowed to vote down the interracial marriage ruling 60 years ago?

[swirless]

Marriage �= Religious Act.

Government & Religion are supposed to be separate.

Where is the huge debate here?

Marriage is not a religous act you can go down to the courthouse and get married, it usually is a religous act but not necessarily

[buckit]

I think all people should enter into civil unions.  No more marriage (ok, keep the ceremony).  Every couple should be required to sit down and draw up and official contract that deals with expectations, violation penalties, termination clauses, monetary compensation, custody, etc BEFORE they walk down the isle.  That would eliminate messy divorces. 

[swirless]

Do you think citizens should have been allowed to vote down the interracial marriage ruling 60 years ago?

I think it is 2 totally different things, I don't think that there ever should have been a proposition of that 60 years ago, but then you also have to say until the courts upheld the 14th amendment there were many state laws that went against national laws dealing with segregation, like Brown v. Board, etc.

[ufojoe]

I'm just asking if voters should be able to vote down SC rulings, state or federal, no matter what they deal with.

[Got_Spleen]

No. It's not the same thing. It was still between a man and a woman.

As far as the same sex thing goes, I personally would have no problem if the government wanted to institute civil unions.

Two people shouldn't be denied the civil benefits of a "marriage" just because they're gay.

Two responsible adults should be able to adopt. There's more than enough horrible straight parents out there. Unwanted kids deserve any good chance they can get.

[buckit]

Good for you got.  Democracy means supporting one's right to do what you don't necessiarly agree with.

[swirless]

I'm just asking if voters should be able to vote down SC rulings, no matter what they deal with.

Well the SC is supposed to interpret the law not make it and through the years they have tried to make laws and that is not their job under the Constitution, the 14th amendment which is a civil rights amendment is making it so the states cannot over rule the US Constitution but to answer your question it is not the responsibility of the SC to make laws

[ufojoe]

No. It's not the same thing. It was still between a man and a woman.

So back then,  if the citizens had succeeded with voting on a measure that banned interracial marriage, we should
have ignored it?