Hundreds of Prop 8 protesters take to L.A. streets

[CrimsonRockett]

Originally Posted by svensko

Make sure you delete a bunch of posts!

Oh wait, you already did.

Can't stress it enough.

Hell, I voted No on it.

I have nothing against gay people.

Again, everybody voted.

It passed.

Another prop will come up with a repeal to this one.

Let that get taken care of.

Don't block traffic and start shit with people passing by.

[alindeman1989]

dam people need to chill. They voted it in now fucking get over it and stop bitching. I swear people are such little whinners.

[jeeper_x]

man, if you're gay and in love about be marry, then this prop came along...

you'll be hella piss, too....

[revat619]

Originally Posted by jeeper_x

man, if you're gay and in love about be marry, then this prop came along...

you'll be hella piss, too....

if i was gay, i'd get a domestic partnership, have all the same rights and benefits as married couples, just TELL people i'm married and stay the fuck home and not back up traffic. Who the fuck cares what it says on paper....

Whats funny is that at the end of all this all the gay people who got married before this are gonna be like "well, sucks for you". FYI, prop 8 is not retroactive.

[jeeper_x]

then what the fuck is the problem?

[revat619]

the problem is that SINCE the passing of 8, any gay couple wanting to get married cant actually use the word "married" to define their union. Yes that is it.

yeah......black civil rights/slavery was soooooooo similar.

I hope now, you can understand my anger with them using that struggle as a comparison.

[DLo Eric]

I cannot believe I just read 91 posts about Prop 8 and only 1 person had the balls (no pun intended) to say they voted against banning gay marriage. I really have no say in the matter considering I live in Nevada. But this seriously boils down to religious f***s and old people's vote. Granted there was a higher percentage of younger people casting their votes this election, you're still battling the baby boomers.

Let the gays get married. Its not going to effect me or you or your children or even your children's children. What makes you think hetero couples can be the only ones allowed to be happy and/or miserable?

I'm tired of being near closed minded bigots. Let the gays be gay. It's not like they're going to setup shop at your nearest elementary school playground or on your front lawn.

I won't even get into hermaphrodites/transgendered as they were BORN this way.

I have nothing to say to anyone nor am I taking my time to type this out for those against gay marriage. It's just whats on my mind.

[jeeper_x]

Originally Posted by revat619

the problem is that they cant use the word "married". Yes that is it.

fuck i thought it was suppose to ban marriage, so the gay couple couldn't get the same rights and benefits of a marry couple....

are you 100 percent sure?

but in the other hand, if it's only that word "married", why not just let the gays have it?

why go through all these friggin' dramas?

[revat619]

Originally Posted by jeeper_x

fuck i thought it was suppose to ban marriage, so the gay couple couldn't get the same rights and benefits of a marry couple....

are you 100 percent sure?

but in the other hand, if it's only that word "married", why not just let the gays have it?

why go through all these friggin' dramas?

Yes, i'm 110% sure. It is about the definition of a word. A domestic partnership in California has all the same rights, priviledges, benefits, etc. of a marriage. Its in the law of California under family code. I'd quote it, but its pretty long. I read the whole thing though. They get all the same shit.

Basically they wanted to be able to use the same word and CA voted and said no you cant. Now they're mad.

I dont care one way or the other.

[PhilthyS13]

Originally Posted by RJF

Wrong. It is not a separation of church and state issue.

It is a separation of powers issue. The Judicial branch cannot make laws which must come from the legislative branch. If they want to pass a law that says it is ok, then it would be fine, but they will have to answer to their constituents.

True, the judiciary cannot make new laws. But they can overturn unconstitutional laws.

Just look at the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, heterosexual people can have drive thru weddings or be married by Elvis or get married sky diving or get married in a Star Trek The Next Generation wedding, regardless of what class, race, IQ, religion, or any other catagory that people belong to with the exception of homosexuals. If that's not discrimination, I don't know what is. At one point is was illegal for Whites to marry other races. That has since changed and the sky hasn't fallen.

And another thing: about religion. My religion, along with many others, forbids premarital sex. I'm not throwing stones, but how many of you people who don't think homosexuals should be married are virgins? Shit, Islam and Mormonism (at least formerly) allow(ed) polygamy.

C'mon, Britney was married for 59 hours and THEN she married KFed. How much worse can it get?

[corwin]

Supreme Court decision that calls marriage a fundamental right:

In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

also:
This is the funniest anti-8 ad I've seen. Hooray for sarcasm.
YouTube - Vote NO on Prop 8

[corwin]

Originally Posted by revat619

if i was gay, i'd get a domestic partnership, have all the same rights and benefits as married couples, just TELL people i'm married and stay the fuck home and not back up traffic. Who the fuck cares what it says on paper....

Whats funny is that at the end of all this all the gay people who got married before this are gonna be like "well, sucks for you". FYI, prop 8 is not retroactive.

Actually, they don't. "A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple."

So basically, they don't get all the rights, but they're subject to all the obligations. Kind of like having to work but not getting paid.

" * 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"

I see nothing there that gives next of kin status, which is pretty damned important IMO.

[HyperTek]

people can still go out of state to get married and come back in right?? like a vegas shotgun marriage ?

[corwin]

from wikipedia: "A valid same-sex marriage performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes such unions, such as Massachusetts, would not be recognized in California as either a marriage or a domestic partnership. This is due to the fact that California statute prohibits recognition of another jurisdiction's validly performed same-sex marriage."

[corwin]

I mean, they can, but that would mean jack regarding their rights in CA.

[revat619]

297.5. (a) 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.

(b) Former 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 former spouses.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer
to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise
would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently
than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by
California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in
the same manner as California law.

(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights
regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.

its even longer than that, but you get the idea.....

Maybe i'm wrong, and often times that is the case, but doesnt that pretty much say that all the shit married couples have/can do domestic partnerships have/can do?

All the stuff you mentioned they dont get could easily be fought with this section of CA law could it not?

[HyperTek]

i think your right, similar in that one movie where that one guy and adam sandler did *ghhh cant think of the name of it*, even tho i dont remember what state the movie took place in lol

[corwin]

Well I missed that, but from my understanding, in practice that is not often the case. But, that just gets us to the whole "separate but equal" argument which I am tired of using right now. Regardless, SCOTUS deemed marriage a fundamental right.

[TheWolf]

OK I'll put it out there... I voted for yes on florida's prop 2.. same thing as 8.. for 1. I don't want gay's being married. I think that will mess kids up to have 2 dad's or 2 mom's. I mean if I was 8 years old again and found out some kid's parrents were gay in my class... you bet I'd tease him about it.. "least my dad doesn't wear and apron and suck dick". There's no comeback for that... Call it what you will but it's not some genetic disposition it's a fad and they'll all die off because it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage that can generate offspring and provide a household for them.

[murda-c]

Someone called me a n####r once.

I didn't have a comeback either, i guess i should go back to africa.

[SimpleS14]

After reading Revat619's (Jay?) post this whole thing makes more sense.

It's more or less a title change, but still given the rights as a married couple.

Perhaps a title such as "married" is more significant than the rights/benefits.

I'm blown they would even try to put this on the same level black civil rights/slavery movements.


murda-c - I always thought you were white :/

[YoungGun]

Some pictures my friend took yesterday:

[mRclARK1]

I wasn't aware that domestic partnerships give them all the same rights and benefits revat619's post is in fact correct... So if all that's being debated is the definition and "right" to use a word? What's the point? If they get all the same benefits from a domestic partnership, then the only possible reason I can see to force this issue is to make some kind of religious statement since that would remain the only difference between the two... The religious signifigance that marriage has to many people.

It seems like when these debates happen, like they did here a few years ago, both sides become extremely immature.

[shade]

I thought marriage originated and came out of the scriptures..

Talking out of my ass, correct me.

[jskateborders]

church and state
Church says no....
So if the state allows gay marriage, they will have to stop pushing natural selection, because in that theory, the weak species die out naturally, and homosexuals are unable to reproduce so....

[aznpoopy]

Originally Posted by PhilthyS13

Just look at the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

equal protection doesn't help them out here, and i'll tell you why.

there are three levels of judicial scrutiny of a law under equal protection. rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. in short, under rb review it's easy to legitimize laws and under ss it's really hard. which review you trigger depends on the classification as a suspect class

homosexuals have not as of yet qualified as a suspect class, mainly because being homosexuality is not yet considered an "immutable characteristic," one of the factors considered in determining whether a denomination is a suspect class. they are classified as "quasi-suspect."

therefore, laws that allegedly violate equal protection for homosexuals are analyzed under the "rational basis" review. rational basis review requires only that the law in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. my guess is a state interest like "preserving the sanctity of the marital institution" will pass muster under rational basis very easily.

[usdm180sx]

I wonder where the gay marriages that were conducted before prop 8 stand. Like Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DeRossi...

[drift freaq]

Ok I am going to sum this whole thread up and I am done.

1. Apparently Prop 8 was more vaguely written than I thought. So though the people behind publicly advertised the facts of who they were it could go either way in Court.

2. Because contested laws can go all the way to the Supreme Court it could indeed become a Constitutional issue.

3. As far as what Reveat was saying about it being compared to Equal rights, I do not think the gist of the discussion was about equal rights. It was about marriage rights. So Reveat needs to be back down on this angle.

4. Marriage is indeed a granted right in the country and was upheld by the Supreme Court, there again indeed making this a constitutional issue.

5. This for Johnny aka Crimson Rocket, Johnny this discussion and debate ensued for one reason. The way that the public was brainwashed by the supporters of Prop 8 with their crazy ads to vote yes on it. It was a mud slinging smear campaign not based on facts but personal beliefs. Hence why so many people are up in arms.

6. This proposition spreads ignorance, it breeds stupidity and whats worse it breeds stupidity based off right wing religious beliefs. I am sorry but ignorance or ignorance in the name of religion are both not good for the U.S.

7. In essence, if the religious people in this thread, who keep on commenting against marriage of gays really were not judging gay people? They would say ok, I don't agree with it but if they want to let them.
If you are religious and feel so threatened by the concept of gays marrying?
I suggest you look at yourself and stop worrying about others, because it seems to be your personal issues and feelings, rather than taking a unbiased look at the situation.

8. To wrap it up its already been filed in court at this point leave up to the Courts. Oh and don't think there will not be another ballot initiative to turn this around as well.
This is not just going to go away or get brushed under the bed. These people want certain definitions and a lot of people feel they deserve it. The actual vote tally was very close and the it only went yes by around 2-3%.

Thats it folks end thread. It was a good discussion.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Originally Posted by drift freaq

Ok I am going to sum this whole thread up and I am done.

1. Apparently Prop 8 was more vaguely written than I thought. So though the people behind publicly advertised the facts of who they were it could go either way in Court.

2. Because contested laws can go all the way to the Supreme Court it could indeed become a Constitutional issue.

3. As far as what Reveat was saying about it being compared to Equal rights, I do not think the gist of the discussion was about equal rights. It was about marriage rights. So Reveat needs to be back down on this angle.

4. Marriage is indeed a granted right in the country and was upheld by the Supreme Court, there again indeed making this a constitutional issue.

5. This for Johnny aka Crimson Rocket, Johnny this discussion and debate ensued for one reason. The way that the public was brainwashed by the supporters of Prop 8 with their crazy ads to vote yes on it. It was a mud slinging smear campaign not based on facts but personal beliefs. Hence why so many people are up in arms.

6. This proposition spreads ignorance, it breeds stupidity and whats worse it breeds stupidity based off right wing religious beliefs. I am sorry but ignorance or ignorance in the name of religion are both not good for the U.S.

7. In essence, if the religious people in this thread, who keep on commenting against marriage of gays really were not judging gay people? They would say ok, I don't agree with it but if they want to let them.
If you are religious and feel so threatened by the concept of gays marrying?
I suggest you look at yourself and stop worrying about others, because it seems to be your personal issues and feelings, rather than taking a unbiased look at the situation.

8. To wrap it up its already been filed in court at this point leave up to the Courts. Oh and don't think there will not be another ballot initiative to turn this around as well.
This is not just going to go away or get brushed under the bed. These people want certain definitions and a lot of people feel they deserve it. The actual vote tally was very close and the it only went yes by around 2-3%.

Thats it folks end thread. It was a good discussion.

great post. And lets not forget that before the whole "dey gunna teach it 2 da childrenz," the yes on prop 8 supporters were down 19 points. I guess 75 million from Utah is good for a 22 point swing.

[airsoft]

I hope soon enough we all start loving our HOT sisters / cousins so that can be legalized if society accepts it... or a vast majority...

I want to fuck my brother, we should all do so, its my right to...

Technically if they compare civil rights etc. to gay marriage...

I can go as far as to say, i want to fuck my sister get married and have kids, please don't think of me differently society and allow us to marry.


Incest is NOT legal in California.

^^WHAT THE FUCK???? WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS TO LOVE WHO I WANT????

IM STARTING A RIOT...

California code 285 on adultery/incest is not well written, but it clearly holds to the standard by which a marriage would be considered valid. Please see the code on "Void Marriage" below.

California Penal (Criminal) Code 285.
Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which
marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who
intermarry with each other, or who being 14 years of age or older,
commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison.

California Family Code - Part 2 Judicial Determination of Void or Voidable Marriage
2200-2201 VOID MARRIAGE
Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and
descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the
half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or
aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning,
whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.