Comments on: Gay Marriage Ban Ballot Backlash

CBS Evening News: Californians Who Opposed Proposition 8 Are Outraged Over Its Passage

[tomanyt]

If I am an xxy chromosome and want to marry a man, can I still do that under Proposition 8?

[evian_ycnan]

If Mormons can Babtize you after you are dead, then if they wanted, they could allow same gender marriage after you are dead.

Posted by caldwellptr at 09:48 PM : Nov 10, 2008

I think what you meant to say is "If Mormons can baptize you after you are dead, then if they wanted, they could declare *** straight after they are dead."

Hey, either way. Works for me.

Regards,

[evian_ycnan]

Crowds continued to target the Mormon church, which poured millions into promoting the same-*** marriage ban and encouraged members to cross state lines to join the campaign.
=================

Church money used in a political campaign? Is the IRS aware of this?

[clovernyc]

Mormons are not Christians.

[clovernyc]

There is no such thing as a ''right'' to be married.

[clovernyc]

The same Constitution you keep crowing about also protects the rights of the majority of Americans.

Homosexuals have civil unions that afford them all the rights and benefits of the marital contract.

Marriage on the other hand is a sacred religious institution. The United States Government does not have the right to redefine a religious institution, strike certain portions of a sacred writing by designating them as ''hate speech'' or to deny Christians the freedom to practice their faith simply because a small, perverted minority of the population is offended.

Democracy works both ways.

[caldwellptr]

If Mormons can Babtize you after you are dead, then if they wanted, they could allow same gender marriage after you are dead.

[caldwellptr]

If Mormons can Babtize you after you are dead, then if they wanted, they could allow same gender marriage after you are dead.

[caldwellptr]

"In 1995, Mormons and Jews inked an agreement to limit the circumstances that allow for the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims. Ending the practice outright was not part of the agreement and would essentially be asking Mormons to alter their beliefs, church Elder Lance B. Wickman said Monday in an interview with reporters in Salt Lake City."

And yet Mormons find same gender marriages hard to understand.

[mumu11]

I think we should institute the civil marriage as a standard accessible to ALL legally competent adults, and that the religious marriage -stripped of any state recognized status- should be a personal choice accessible to church (synagogue, temple, etc...) members according to the rules of their own congregation.

[mumu11]

Not quite. What the court said was true: A state sanctioned marriage CANNOT take religious parameters into account or it breaks the constitution. As it stood, the California constitution said nothing either for or against gay marriage. Prop 8 added the ban into the constitution. If the religious people do feel honestly that marriage is a religious sacrament, and that as such, it must agree with religious tenets, then they should put their wallets where their hearts are and forgo all the State and Federal advantages those non-religious authorities grant married couples (lower taxes, inheritance between spouses, etc...). Any other choice denotes hypocrisy.

[klgrube1]

atty79: I think it''s important for the court to clean up the mess it caused with its decision that has now left so many marriages in question. And I''m simply suggesting that one really good way to do this is to help them avoid the complications of having to dissolve a marriage and then enter into a legal domestic partnership by making this process easy and not as burdensome as it otherwise would be. This should be an OPTION, and I think it''s one many may choose now that three states have banned gay marriage.

And I''m sorry, but most of us see it the other way around: that the State Supreme Court tried to usurp the power of the Legislature and of the electorate to make laws and to amend the Constitution. According to the State Constitution, they don''t have the authority to do that.

All of the rights granted to married couples by the State of California are already granted to domestic partners! Their rights are ALREADY protected! Jeez! What you''re asking for is more than ''legal protection.'' You''re pushing for full acceptance of your lifestyle choices, and you''re just not going to get it this way, certainly not by attacking people who disagree with those choices and trying to pull stupid stunts like boycotting Utah. Give me a break!

[atty79]

klgrube1: I see no reason that the court should worry about transitioning marriages into domestic partnerships. Firstly, marriage is NOT a domestic partnership. You can''t simply transition it. It doesn''t transfer. It doesn''t equate. Spouses don''t transition into partners any more than square pegs fit in round holes.

Secondly, Californians need to understand the laws which make them free. I''m ashamed to live in a country with so many fellow Americans completely oblivious about basic rights and separation of powers. The mess you think the court created in May is no mess at all. The court was doing its job--interpreting the constitution. The court was duly established BY THE PEOPLE. It found a minority deserved protection UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Prop 8 is trying to usurp the judicial branch. The simple majority of the people is trying to decide without deliberation on an issue of equal protection. Prop 8, if it''s not stopped, will destroy the very fabric of separation of powers. What minority group should we single out next?

[atty79]

klgrube1: I see no reason that the court should worry about transitioning marriages into domestic partnerships. Firstly, marriage is NOT a domestic partnership. You can''t simply transition it. It doesn''t transfer. It doesn''t equate. Spouses don''t transition into partners any more than square pegs fit in round holes.

Secondly, Californians need to understand the laws which make them free. I''m ashamed to live in a country with so many fellow Americans completely oblivious about basic rights and separation of powers. The mess you think the court created in May is no mess at all. The court was doing its job--interpreting the constitution. The court was duly established BY THE PEOPLE. It found a minority deserved protection UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Prop 8 is trying to usurp the judicial branch. The simple majority of the people is trying to decide without deliberation on an issue of equal protection. Prop 8, if it''s not stopped, will destroy the very fabric of separation of powers. What minority group should we single out next?

[klgrube1]

vegasresiden: Sorry, I missed part of your post. I''m not even suggesting that the court at this time address the legality of the marriages that were conducted between June and now. I am, however, suggesting that the State of California should provide an easy way for couples, should they wish to do so, to transition their ''marriages'' to legal domestic partnerships. Many couples may wish to do this now. I genuinely don''t know the answer to this, but it occurs to me that those who were married here but live in Florida or Arizona may not have their marriages recognized now, and may have an easier time with the recognition of a legal domestic partnership in terms of insurance, property rights, inheritance, etc. I''m suggesting that California should make this transition an option since the alternative (dissolving a marriage and then having to file for a legal domestic partnership) would be overly burdensome. As I said, this was the court''s problem, and I think it is their responsibility to clean up this mess they created. Oh, and I also think the State should allow any man-woman couple married during this time to revise their marriage certificates to read "Bride and Groom" if they wish.

[VegasResident]

Endtimes, I hope your absence is due to you reading that passage.

I have to go. But let me know what you think.

[e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bye Void!

[voidmaster-2009]

Endtimes, I hope your absence is due to you reading that passage.

I have to go. But let me know what you think.

[e-mail]

[VegasResident]

egasresiden: Yes, you correctly quoted part of the opinion of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George in the Court''''a decision to declare the statutes modified by Prop 22 unconstitutional. But at that point, the Constitution itself had not been amended. The Statutory Initative process he was referring to was that held in 2000 that only modified some of the state statutes. He was not wpecifically referring to a State Consitutional Amendment, and I doubt that he would apply that opinion to a Constitutional Amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quite correct as I am not sure if they even thought about the possibility of it happening which I find interesting.

If the language proposed by Proposition 8 is part of the California Constitution, one of the alternatives for proponents of same-*** marriage is to change the Constitution. Draft language proposing a repeal of any newly-enacted amendment or an altogether new amendment to be included in the Constitution. They will then need to raise 694,354 signatures.

California will then go through the same battles and arguments as it did during this election.

The other alternative is further legal battles. An argument that the amendment is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution,This will likely be undertaken in the federal courts, and may eventually end up being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear these arguments.

ANd thus I forsee many years on this battle

[klgrube1]

vegasresiden: Yes, you correctly quoted part of the opinion of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George in the Court''a decision to declare the statutes modified by Prop 22 unconstitutional. But at that point, the Constitution itself had not been amended. The Statutory Initative process he was referring to was that held in 2000 that only modified some of the state statutes. He was not wpecifically referring to a State Consitutional Amendment, and I doubt that he would apply that opinion to a Constitutional Amendment.

[VegasResident]

Article 18 of the state Constitution provides that the document can be changed by amendment or by revision. An amendment may be enacted by initiative with a majority vote, whereas a revision must first be passed by two-thirds of the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. (California''s Legislature has voted twice in recent years to legalize same-*** marriage, but the governor vetoed it.)

Does Proposition 8 qualify as a revision? Under the case law, it''s a revision only if it "substantially alters the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution." Proposition 8 does exactly that, its opponents say, by eliminating a fundamental right for a specific group, and by limiting the judiciary''s constitutional role in enforcing equal protection and privacy guarantees.