70 percent of voting black Californians should be ashamed of themselves.

[Karlifornia]

This election was destined to represent the best in us. It was supposed to show America that a black person was qualified enough, eloquent enough, and charismatic enough to be elected. It was supposed to be an election that showcased the progressiveness of Americans. This election would reclaim our status as a world leader, rather than as a stubborn world bully.

Throughout most of the country, that all happened. In California, it didn't, in my opinion.

I believe that black people weren't voting for Obama just because he was black, but because he was a democrat. Black people were always liberal. Why would most black people be conservative? 90% of black people have nothing to lose. It's very hard to be conservative with assets that you don't have, and never grew up having.

Then, proposition 8 passed. The results came out that 70% of black voters were in favor of prop 8. This made me so sick inside. These MOTHERFUCKERS that came out to vote, some (or many) for the first time in their lives...they didn't have the ability to look into the past and see their own ancestors in the battle being fought now?

Fucking assholes. I am embarrassed. Any black person that voted yes on 8 is a fucking joke of a person. It almost makes me want to join the KKK. I would join the muthafuckin KU KLUX KLAN if it meant I could slap a black bigot in the face.


There is no EXCUSE for us black people to want to hold down the rights of other people. At least white people have an excuse...they've never been FUCKIN' OPPRESSED!!

Black people? No fuckin' excuse. If you are black, and you are anti-gay......your family must not have told you enough about the struggle.

NOWWWW......as far as the marriage debate goes by itself...I have a question. Is marriage an establishment of religion? If so, then what about the separation of church and state? If marriage is only really marriage when following the laws of religion, then why are there any actual laws in regards to marriage? If marriage is purely a religious construct, then there should be NO benefits given at all to married couples, as they have entered a union supported by religion. The state should not unequivocally support anything.

If marriage is not entwined in religion, then there is no issue with gays getting married (not that there should be in any way, shape, or form to begin with).

[Tekneek]

I wouldn't go as far as you have... However, there are some important points in here. Why would a once oppressed minority group rush out to oppress another? It makes no sense.

Indeed. If marriage is strictly religious, let's remove it from our tax tables and forms, any other legal document, and immediately do away with any legal standing/benefit/right gained from marriage alone. The religious can have marriage the way they want it, but they cannot derive any benefit from the government at all for it. The government will no longer recognize marriage. No more marriage licenses regulated by the government. No more marriage certificates issued by the government.

I'm ok with that. If marriage cannot be allowed for any and all consenting adults, then nobody gets it (as far as our government and laws are concerned). It becomes no different under the law than baptism, confession, etc, as religious operations that are governed by their churches alone and have no bearing on the government or the laws of this nation.

[Raiders Army]

Quick response: If a half Black person voted against it, shouldn't he only be 35% ashamed of himself?

Longer response: Has it been proven that being gay is genetic? If it has, then perhaps you are correct. If it hasn't, then there's a big difference with being born a certain race and being withheld rights and making a lifestyle choice and being withheld rights.

[QuikSand]

If this issue were a rational one, it would cease to be much of an issue.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Longer response: Has it been proven that being gay is genetic? If it has, then perhaps you are correct. If it hasn't, then there's a big difference with being born a certain race and being withheld rights and making a lifestyle choice and being withheld rights.

I wonder why this logic was not applied to inter-racial marriages. Ever heard of Loving v. Virginia? Surely they could just argue that there is no reason you have to marry someone outside of your race, right? I seem to remember there being a school of thought that you couldn't help who you fell in love with... There was a time when inter-racial marriage was just as outlandish a concept to some as gay marriage is today.

If we turn this on its ear, to something else, would you all find it just as acceptable? What if smoking was made illegal by a vote? Would you all be happy about it? There is no genetic reason to start smoking, is there? I would be opposed to those ideas as well, because I really don't think those should be up for a vote. I do not smoke, and never have, but I don't think this is something that should be voted on. I'd rather the tyranny of the majority not be invoked in my vision of freedom and liberty.

[Bonegavel]

Hey, I would love to marry 17 women and have a harem, but guess what? I can't because it's against the law.

BTW, I imagine that even with the extra sex, 17 wives means

(nagging * 17) / (sex * 17 - n) = super early death

which may make it best to be limited to 1.

(n = the number of wives that don't want to have anything to do with you which is probably a very high number and if n = 0 the entire equation explodes and does 2d20 damage)

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

Hey, I would love to marry 17 women and have a harem, but guess what? I can't because it's against the law.

BTW, I imagine that even with the extra sex, 17 wives means

(nagging * 17) / (sex * 17 - n) = super early death

which may make it best to be limited to 1.

(n = the number of wives that don't want to have anything to do with you which is probably a very high number and if n = 0 the entire equation explodes and does 2d20 damage)

This issue is not about polygamy. It never was and never has been. Please tell me why you think it was about being able to have multiple wives?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I wouldn't go as far as you have... However, there are some important points in here. Why would a once oppressed minority group rush out to oppress another? It makes no sense.

No, it doesn't, but that's human nature.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If this issue were a rational one, it would cease to be much of an issue.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

[Tekneek]

Can anyone make a solid case for gays to not be married that is not based on religious dogma or some personal distaste for the concept? If it is truly such a horrible idea, there should be convincing arguments available that are based on science/hard data, right?

[JimboJ]

I can't believe you are suprised by this. What evidence do you have that black people are or have ever been sympathetic to gays? In fact, based on what I have seen, in general, black people tend to be less tolerant of gay people. Have you ever heard some of the lyrics in rap music?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Poor black voters, can't win for losing.

Catch hell when they get vote wrong, catch hell when they actually manage to get a vote right.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

there should be convincing arguments available that are based on science/hard data, right?

Thank you Mr. Spock.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thank you Mr. Spock.

Appreciate the admission that none of those arguments are available.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Appreciate the admission that none of those arguments are available.

There's a lot of things that aren't entirely based in science/data. I'm not even sure you couldn't make a statistically valid argument that murder might be a net gain for society in some cases, want to legalize it on that basis?

More directly related to this situation, there's probably very little data to suggest that there's any scientific reason not to legislate the renaming of the color "blue" to now be known as the new color "sofa" ... but that wouldn't make such a move any more worthwhile or rational.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

This issue is not about polygamy. It never was and never has been. Please tell me why you think it was about being able to have multiple wives?

why can't i have the right to marry anybody I want even if that means more than 1? I was trying to point out that I can't because it is against the law as is gay marriage.

Look, I have no problem with gays marrying (I don't see the point, but I don't have a problem with it and welcome to the marriage penalty!) and I know I'm in the conservative minority on that. I also think that people should be able to have assisted suicide or smoke pot or any other number of things but they are against the law.

But why would 2 gays marrying be any more valid than a polygamist's desire for multiple wives/husbands? Are you trying to say that you want to discriminate against polygamists but not gays? Isn't that also bigotry? Where does it end? Personally, I think they should both be allowed what they want.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's a lot of things that aren't entirely based in science/data. I'm not even sure you couldn't make a statistically valid argument that murder might be a net gain for society in some cases, want to legalize it on that basis?

Probably not, because it is likely to be favorable for civilization much of the time to not have random murders going on. We already generally legalize murder via the death penalty, self-defense, war, etc. So, the decision has already been made to legalize it under certain circumstances, hasn't it?

More directly related to this situation, there's probably very little data to suggest that there's any scientific reason not to legislate the renaming of the color "blue" to now be known as the new color "sofa" ... but that wouldn't make such a move any more worthwhile or rational.

Is anyone being denied access to benefits/rights through the government based on this? That might be the first test I would apply, since the issue here is denying committed couples access to the same rights granted to others.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

why can't i have the right to marry anybody I want even if that means more than 1? I was trying to point out that I can't because it is against the law as is gay marriage.

Prior to the vote on 11/5, gay marriage WAS legal in California.

Look, I have no problem with gays marrying (I don't see the point, but I don't have a problem with it and welcome to the marriage penalty!) and I know I'm in the conservative minority on that. I also think that people should be able to have assisted suicide or smoke pot or any other number of things but they are against the law.

Not in all places. You're wrong on both of your main points so far. Where are you going with this?

But why would 2 gays marrying be any more valid than a polygamist's desire for multiple wives/husbands? Are you trying to say that you want to discriminate against polygamists but not gays? Isn't that also bigotry? Where does it end? Personally, I think they should both be allowed what they want.

Not at all. Personally, I don't have a problem with consenting adults agreeing to any type of marriage contract they choose. However, that doesn't mean that Proposition 8 had anything at all to do with polygamy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

That might be the first test I would apply, since the issue here is denying committed couples access to the same rights granted to others.

No marriageable couple is being denied anything here. I'm honestly not sure why that's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. There is no "right" for two persons of the same gender to marry, that's pure fiction. And there is no compelling reason for such an absurd notion to be created out of thin air.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No marriageable couple is being denied anything here. I'm honestly not sure why that's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. There is no "right" for two persons of the same gender to marry, that's pure fiction. And there is no compelling reason for such an absurd notion to be created out of thin air.

Jon, gay marriage was legal in California before Proposition 8 passed. Saying it wasn't means you are a liar.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Jon, gay marriage was legal in California before Proposition 8 passed. Saying it wasn't means you are a liar.

This is what pisses me off, basically.

For me, it's a different thing to change the law in order to accommodate the rights of a minority than to change the law in order to discriminate against a minority.

Proposition 8 was not asking for the people to legalize gay marriage in California, it was already legal. Proposition 8 was asking for the people to eliminate a right that gay people already had.

It was a vote to discriminate, not a vote to "protect thesanctity of marriage", and anyone who voted Yes to Proposition 8 would fall under the category of a bigot.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

This election was destined to represent the best in us. It was supposed to show America that a black person was qualified enough, eloquent enough, and charismatic enough to be elected. It was supposed to be an election that showcased the progressiveness of Americans. This election would reclaim our status as a world leader, rather than as a stubborn world bully.

Throughout most of the country, that all happened. In California, it didn't, in my opinion.

I believe that black people weren't voting for Obama just because he was black, but because he was a democrat. Black people were always liberal. Why would most black people be conservative? 90% of black people have nothing to lose. It's very hard to be conservative with assets that you don't have, and never grew up having.

Then, proposition 8 passed. The results came out that 70% of black voters were in favor of prop 8. This made me so sick inside. These MOTHERFUCKERS that came out to vote, some (or many) for the first time in their lives...they didn't have the ability to look into the past and see their own ancestors in the battle being fought now?

Fucking assholes. I am embarrassed. Any black person that voted yes on 8 is a fucking joke of a person. It almost makes me want to join the KKK. I would join the muthafuckin KU KLUX KLAN if it meant I could slap a black bigot in the face.


There is no EXCUSE for us black people to want to hold down the rights of other people. At least white people have an excuse...they've never been FUCKIN' OPPRESSED!!

Black people? No fuckin' excuse. If you are black, and you are anti-gay......your family must not have told you enough about the struggle.

NOWWWW......as far as the marriage debate goes by itself...I have a question. Is marriage an establishment of religion? If so, then what about the separation of church and state? If marriage is only really marriage when following the laws of religion, then why are there any actual laws in regards to marriage? If marriage is purely a religious construct, then there should be NO benefits given at all to married couples, as they have entered a union supported by religion. The state should not unequivocally support anything.

If marriage is not entwined in religion, then there is no issue with gays getting married (not that there should be in any way, shape, or form to begin with).

I find it funny when "open minded liberals" complain about others for not thinking the way they do. Very open minded there...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Jon, gay marriage was legal in California before Proposition 8 passed. Saying it wasn't means you are a liar.

Saying that it was the legal will of the people is also an utter & complete lie, nothing more than shenanigans. It was also the equivalent of the color "sofa", and was seen as such by the people & the mistake of the loophole was closed quite solidly.

But you keep on railin', I've gotten over the sadness of the moral & intellectual bankruptcy it illustrates. I'll just sit over here and enjoy one of the few victories the nation managed to salvage from an otherwise destructive week.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll just sit over here and enjoy one of the few victories the nation managed to salvage from an otherwise destructive week.

*sigh* guess this shouldn't really surprise me

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Saying that it was the legal will of the people is also an utter & complete lie, nothing more than shenanigans. It was also the equivalent of the color "sofa", and was seen as such by the people & the mistake of the loophole was closed quite solidly.

But you keep on railin', I've gotten over the sadness of the moral & intellectual bankruptcy it illustrates. I'll just sit over here and enjoy one of the few victories the nation managed to salvage from an otherwise destructive week.

You want destructive? Look at the last 8 years. I would be shocked if Obama manages to fuck things up to half of the degree that Dubya and friends have over their two terms. Also, if you are talking about morality, there are plenty of straight married people that are far more morally corrupt than any gay couple. Not sure why the idea of two women or two men getting married is so frightening to you.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I wonder why this logic was not applied to inter-racial marriages. Ever heard of Loving v. Virginia? Surely they could just argue that there is no reason you have to marry someone outside of your race, right? I seem to remember there being a school of thought that you couldn't help who you fell in love with... There was a time when inter-racial marriage was just as outlandish a concept to some as gay marriage is today.

If we turn this on its ear, to something else, would you all find it just as acceptable? What if smoking was made illegal by a vote? Would you all be happy about it? There is no genetic reason to start smoking, is there? I would be opposed to those ideas as well, because I really don't think those should be up for a vote. I do not smoke, and never have, but I don't think this is something that should be voted on. I'd rather the tyranny of the majority not be invoked in my vision of freedom and liberty.

So you would rather have the tyranny of the minority invoked on the majority's vision of freedom and liberty?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

So you would rather have the tyranny of the minority invoked on the majority's vision of freedom and liberty?

Wow. You really have no idea what the words "freedom" or "liberty" mean, do you?

[flere-imsaho]

JiMGA, remind me, because I've forgotten, but are you for or against civil unions for same sex couples?

[Ajaxab]

I find it perfectly reasonable why there would be so many African-Americans supporting Prop 8. If a group wants to gain additional power and influence in society, procreation is one of the primary ways to do it. For the African-American to support homosexuality is to potentially short-circuit that increasing influence in culture. Combine that with the historical connection between African-American culture and the church and this vote makes perfect sense.

In both of these respects, they were directly respecting those who came before by honoring a push for more African-American influence on American culture and by honoring the tradition religious beliefs of those who came before. Their vote here may be contradictory given the history of civil rights, but these reasons would suggest that it might not be as contradictory as it seems.

Whether those reasons are good reasons is another discussion, but they are reasonable nonetheless.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If this issue were a rational one, it would cease to be much of an issue.

It's like the abortion issue, which I wrote about here, in that there's a wide swathe of middle ground to furrow that isn't (and won't be) largely because the partisans on either end control the debate:

Tangent: Politically, this is the problem. I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

And thus it is with gay marriage. The majority of gays I know (and I'd posit the majority of gays in general) are basically looking for an inviolate legal status which will allow them access to practical tools, such as inheritance, power of attorney, visitation rights, shared health care, etc.... But the most aggressive parts of the movement want the whole enchilada, real "marriage", because this also captures the symbolic value of "true" equality in American society.

Conversely, those who drive the "anti" debate do so with the absolute conviction that a gay relationship can never be equal in any way to a straight relationship, and so it should never be accorded equal rights, even with civil unions, and certainly not with "marriage". And while there may be members of the "anti" side who would be willing to concede on secular civil unions, privately, they'll never do so publically because they know the activists on the other side will use this as a stepping stone to get equal "marriages".

The bottom line, of course, is that I'd bet that a majority of Americans, especially when faced with the realities of what gays are looking for, say they know a gay couple who are struggling with sharing medical coverage, or one needs hospital visitation rights and isn't getting them, or whatever, would respond: "you know, that's fucked up, they should have those rights." But this majority is, generally, ambivalent about fighting for the provision of those rights, so there's no driver here. Instead the debate is driven by the extremes.

[Young Drachma]

Blacks and Hispanics that voted against it, did so for the same cultural/religious reasons that white evangelicals did.

They don't see it as a civil rights issue, nor do they see it as akin to any sort of struggle they went through.

You can be mad about it, but I don't believe there ought to be a double standard of equality attached to it.

[Fidatelo]

I think marriage should be defined in two ways:

1) The legal, civil act that has tax implications etc.
2) The religious act that is sanctioned by a church.

The first one should let any 2 consenting people get married and reap the benefits or penalties that come with the association. If polygamists want to fight for the right to have multiple parties in the association I'd be fine with it so long as it didn't open up any legal/tax advantages over a 1-to-1 marriage.

The second one should be up to the church to decide. If you don't like the rules of your church, find a new church or start your own.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

They don't see it as a civil rights issue, nor do they see it as akin to any sort of struggle they went through.

Isn't that the problem though? How is this struggle any different than the struggle to allow interracial marriages. No one would say that sturggle wasn't a "civil rights issue", so why isn't this struggle one?

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

You can be mad about it, but I don't believe there ought to be a double standard of equality attached to it.

Why not? It pretty much is a double standard, no? You can dress up the argument against gay marriage any way you'd like (religion, economy, whatever the heck Ajaxab is talking about a few posts, etc.), at the end of the day, however, the result is simply denying a minority group a right. That's inequality.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Saying that it was the legal will of the people is also an utter & complete lie, nothing more than shenanigans. It was also the equivalent of the color "sofa", and was seen as such by the people & the mistake of the loophole was closed quite solidly.

Yep. Just like desegregation was never the "will of the people" in the South either, nor was the legalization of inter-racial marriage. Why don't you fix those now, too? Or have you found that they aren't really as scary as once thought, and somehow civilization has not crumbled?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think marriage should be defined in two ways:

1) The legal, civil act that has tax implications etc.
2) The religious act that is sanctioned by a church.

The first one should let any 2 consenting people get married and reap the benefits or penalties that come with the association. If polygamists want to fight for the right to have multiple parties in the association I'd be fine with it so long as it didn't open up any legal/tax advantages over a 1-to-1 marriage.

The second one should be up to the church to decide. If you don't like the rules of your church, find a new church or start your own.

I agree. I don't think anyone is saying that churches should be forced to or even asked to accept gay marriage. There two distinct aspects of marriage: civil and religious. For some people the religious aspect is super important and for others it makes no difference.

My wife and I were married in Belgium. In most European countries there is a civil ceremony and then separate, completely optional, religious ceremony. Because neither of us is religious, we had the civil ceremony and toally skipped the religious ceremony.

That's really the way things ought to be and that's all gays and lesbians are asking for: Equality under the law, not under the eyes of "God".

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

So you would rather have the tyranny of the minority invoked on the majority's vision of freedom and liberty?

Proposition 8 is a demonstration of mob rule, which is the enemy of anyone who truly loves the concepts of freedom and liberty. In general, the fore fathers of this nation tried to prevent mob rule from taking control and, as we can tell from history, for very good reasons.

Proposition 8 had everything to do with revoking a right, which is precisely what it did. This is what makes it different than what happened in other states that pre-emptively passed similar amendments/laws. This is acknowledged by the fact that the State of California has already revealed that all same gender marriages that took place prior to the ban passing ARE LEGAL and will CONTINUE to be recognized by the government as LEGAL MARRIAGES.

[stevew]

If kinky Kelly wants to marry the sexy stud, who am I to stand in the way

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Prior to the vote on 11/5, gay marriage WAS legal in California.

Since the spring and the CaSC overturning a law that had banned it.

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Not in all places. You're wrong on both of your main points so far. Where are you going with this?

Then they can move to a place where it is legal.

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Not at all. Personally, I don't have a problem with consenting adults agreeing to any type of marriage contract they choose. However, that doesn't mean that Proposition 8 had anything at all to do with polygamy.

I'm not saying that polygamy had anything to do with Prop8. Just showing that two groups of people are being denied something and they have to live with it because of the law.

Your first comment was about marriage being based on religion and whatnot and I was simply commenting on marriage as a larger canvas.

Why don't gay marriage activists fight to make marriage open to any sort of union whatsoever so that everyone can have what they want? I'd be good with that. Why narrowly define it? Anyone can marry whatever(s). Why stop at same sex? Let's take it to its logical conclusion. Don't tell me what I can and cannot marry and I'm not being a smart-ass here since I really don't care what somebody does as far as marriage is concerned.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

...

Proposition 8 had everything to do with revoking a right, which is precisely what it did. ...

I don't think this is entirely accurate. I've already posted about my mixed feelings on this. The state/Government has no business drawing such distinctions between residents.

The fact is that the voters, ten years ago, banned this act explicitly. A single mayor flaunted the law, albeit one I disagreed with, and by doing so qualified a class of individuals to challenge the law. The courts then came a long and overturned the actions of the population and the legislature (who avoided the issue in the first place), and established a new law. So I can almost be persuaded that voting for prop 8 on the basis that it would a referrendum on judicial activism on such issues. Almost. that is.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm sure that everyone is thinking this while no one is asking it. Is anyone in this thread actually gay and has a vested interest in the results?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

Why don't gay marriage activists fight to make marriage open to any sort of union whatsoever so that everyone can have what they want? I'd be good with that. Why narrowly define it? Anyone can marry whatever(s). Why stop at same sex? Let's take it to its logical conclusion. Don't tell me what I can and cannot marry and I'm not being a smart-ass here since I really don't care what somebody does as far as marriage is concerned.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Please demonstrate to me the logic behind same-gender couples getting married leading directly to marriages with non-consenting adults, inanimate objects, animals, etc. I'm not following this supposed "logic" at all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm sure that everyone is thinking this while no one is asking it.

I never thought about this. Never crossed my mind. Totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Is anyone in this thread actually gay and has a vested interest in the results?

I am not gay, but I do have quite a few friends who are, so, I have vested interest in the results to extent that it affects them.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm not gay but I'm not sure why that means I don't have a vested interest in the results.

Indeed. As if everyone who wanted slavery to end had to be a slave themselves.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Would you have considered Brown v. Board of Ed. judicial activism? Do you feel there's ever a place in this country for judicial activism?

People throw the term "judicial activism" around whenever a court makes a decision they don't agree with it. It's a totally empty phrase that is devoid of any meaning.

Our government is set up as a system of checks and balances. The judiciary plays a vital role in this system. Always have, always should.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Please demonstrate to me the logic behind same-gender couples getting married leading directly to marriages with non-consenting adults, inanimate objects, animals, etc. I'm not following this supposed "logic" at all.

What about all the other folks out there that want to have non-traditional marriages? You think same sex is the only other type out there?

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Isn't that the problem though? How is this struggle any different than the struggle to allow interracial marriages. No one would say that sturggle wasn't a "civil rights issue", so why isn't this struggle one?



Why not? It pretty much is a double standard, no? You can dress up the argument against gay marriage any way you'd like (religion, economy, whatever the heck Ajaxab is talking about a few posts, etc.), at the end of the day, however, the result is simply denying a minority group a right. That's inequality.

I'm not making an argument about whether or not Prop 8 should or should not pass. It was merely trying to provide some reasonable explanation about why so many African-Americans would support it and have a historical reason for doing so. Call those reasons unfair and unjust, but I don't see them as entirely unreasonable given the culture and history of the African-American experience in this country.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

What about all the other folks out there that want to have non-traditional marriages? You think same sex is the only other type out there?

Between consenting adults? I've already said I don't have a problem with any marriages involving consenting adults. What else is there? If you can show me an adult telephone pole that can give legal consent, I might be persuaded that they can engage in a marriage contract as well.

[Fidatelo]

I'm not sure where Bonegavel is going, but I think consent should have to be a part of marriage. A sheep can't consent, so you shouldn't be able to marry it.

Of course, if that's not where he's going then I'm totally lost to his point.

[Raiders Army]

Somewhat tangentially related, but can someone enlighten me on what the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 doesn't do that allowing marriage will? From what I can tell, the only gays that would want marriage allowed in California are the ones who don't live in California.

[Bad-example]

I don't see much difference between this issue and the struggles for civil rights and women's suffrage. Thirty to forty years from now people will look back and wonder how some people were so backward and bigoted.

Gays have always been and always will be a part of this country. It is just a natural fact. Trying to legislate away their Constitution-given rights is pathetic. They are Americans and deserve the same right to be happy or miserable as the rest of us.

I don't see any problem with treating gays the same as anyone else. After all, they are Americans.

[Warhammer]

This issue is all about religion. If they really want this stuff passed, call it a civil union and pass legislation that makes civil unions = marriage in the eyes of the government.

I would have voted prop 8 down on those grounds. If they want to call it a civil union I'm all for it.