1 2
#777401
Malkavian Jeff
I say no to Christianity, and I mean it.
11/21/2008 6:53:42 PM
#777402
Epic Wolf
The reason the judges overturned it was becuase it's (used to be, at least) illegal and unconstitutional to deny someone thier civil rights and liberties. You shouldn't be able to take away rights like that.
11/21/2008 6:54:06 PM
#777403
anonymous
The people have no right to do that. It's none of our business.
Jeff is right, it's like saying you can't practice a certain religion just because you don't like it.
11/21/2008 6:54:53 PM
#777420
Knotilus
OK, I'll leave past racial bans out of it.
Do you have a proposition to ban muslim marriages, or one to ban atheist marriages? Surely these are just as "immoral" as gay marriages.
11/21/2008 7:07:41 PM
#777421
Reverend Jeremiah
And the judges will overturn it again.
11/21/2008 7:07:51 PM
#777425
Mister Spak
Let's not get into the lame excuse that my fathers bigotry in the past was bad, but my bigotry in the present is authorised by god.
11/21/2008 7:10:27 PM
#777426
Dark_Lord_Prime
"In CA, the will of the people in Prop 22 was overturned with no real legal basis."
The legal basis is that it was un-Constitutional.
11/21/2008 7:10:40 PM
#777428
Captain Obvious
The majority should not be able to oppress the minority. That's why Prop 22 was overturned.
11/21/2008 7:15:21 PM
#777431
Giveitaday
Let's see...what about God ordaining marriage as a specific thing?
The concept of marriage existed long before the concept of your "god".
Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing gay "marriage" and Prop 8 with racial bans in the past.
It's not a faulty analogy, it's bigotry plain and simple.
In CA, the will of the people in Prop 22 was overturned with no real legal basis.
It violated both the spirit and the letter of the state constitution.
So Prop 8 is the voice of the people saying to those judges
You should have had the constitution ammended then.
We said "no" to gay marriage before, and we MEAN it.
Or what? Are you going to start lynching judges who strike down your unconstitutional laws?
11/21/2008 7:19:39 PM
#777448
agentCDE
And the Courts said no to voting on other people's rights, and they MEANT it.
11/21/2008 7:31:47 PM
#777449
myheadhurts
Apparently the degree at which the people mean it has lessened a bit.
God did not ordain marriage. The church was against marriage in the early years and only adapted it once women had all their rights stripped.
11/21/2008 7:31:52 PM
#777473
Doctor Whom
Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing gay "marriage" and Prop 8 with racial bans in the past. In CA, the will of the people in Prop 22 was overturned with no real legal basis. So Prop 8 is the voice of the people saying to those judges - We said "no" to gay marriage before, and we MEAN it.
Never mind that some states amended their constitutions, in accordance with your holy will of the majority, to forbid interracial marriage. Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing something with ... well, actually, itself.
11/21/2008 7:45:04 PM
#777486
Lucilius
"What is it to me? Let's see...what about God ordaining marriage ...."
Hey, everybody, CRoadwarrior thinks he's God!
11/21/2008 7:49:00 PM
#777488
aaa
Constitution, kid.
11/21/2008 7:49:47 PM
#777513
Grigadil
We Sun worshippers said "no" to Christers masturbating in public, and we MEAN it.
11/21/2008 8:01:47 PM
#777537
Thejebusfire
what about God ordaining marriage as a specific thing?
Prove that your god is real, and then you might be on to something.
Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing gay "marriage" and Prop 8 with racial bans in the past.
How is it faulty? Blacks got a lot of hate, but atleast they got to marry each other. Gays don't even get that.
How would you like it if the people voted to take away your marriage?
11/21/2008 9:03:19 PM
#777588
Old Viking
Chances are it will end up in court again, and be overturned again. You're in a peeing contest that you can't win.
And where, in the Bible, does God define marriage?
11/21/2008 9:31:13 PM
#777605
GigaGuess
...And the judges will say that you have no right to rule on our rights. Your point?
11/21/2008 9:42:15 PM
#777715
Xotan
Wasn't it a bought vote? $15m. The M stands for Mormons, as well as millions.
11/21/2008 10:58:25 PM
#777745
oh_come_on
"These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority...
We are all lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right...
Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim."
- Paul Martin, February 2005
11/21/2008 11:16:27 PM
#777766
Professor M
Prop 8 was people in California saying that they don't think they really need any constitutional protection -- after all, none of their rights are ever going to be disapproved of by enough people that someone with a pile of money can convince a majority to vote against them based on false claims.
11/21/2008 11:37:50 PM
#777768
Jay-Sus
And prop 8 will be overturned like prop 22.
11/21/2008 11:38:09 PM
#777826
Saccharissa
"So Prop 8 is the voice of the people"
51% of the people, that is...
11/22/2008 12:10:21 AM
#777846
Papabear
Until you prove God exists, your babble about what he ordained is meaningless.
11/22/2008 12:23:46 AM
#777856
dg
Just a hypothetial question (I do think prop 8 was stupid): if the people in California really believed that, could they amend the Constitution in a way that couldn't be overturned by the courts?
@Professor M: Exactly. The theory is that the "important" rights (according to these people) would never even come to a vote because nearly everybody wants them. They miss the point completely.
11/22/2008 12:33:03 AM
1 2